FORT UNION
GOAL REGION
BLM LIBRARY
88013607
iwnlni
1
L' « Hi i.
/ 1
kxo
i*^*;f^fl^
./£**-.<*$*?*.
<*"»*. fjtymi
j^jjgE^
■PL ' I » ^^
^••-SS 1
-- r-^gtEm
3 r l^L^Z
T^rn^p^
i
gg^Bj^^^^m
" L Or
t.-^i-u '
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
February 1 983
BLM-MT-ES-83-007-41 12
4
As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of
the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned
public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the
wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and
wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our
national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoy-
ment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department
assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure
that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The
Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian
reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territo-
ries under G.S. administration.
ERRATA m
Page 1-2, column 1, Federal Recoverable Reserves, Mf
Truax tract should read 28.2 million tons. P
Historical mining cover photo courtesy of Mrs. Bess Stevens and the Nokota Company.
\%ol
IN REPLY REFER TO:
United States Department of the Intenor
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
222 North 32nd Street
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, Montana 59107
Dear Reader:
BUI Library -
D-553A, Building 50
Denver Federal Center
p O. Bo*2&0*7
Denver* CO aw*-
Two separate documents have been incorporated into the Final Fort Union Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The Draft EIS was issued in July 1 982. The Air Quality Informational Supplement to the Draft EIS was issued in
September 1 982. Both of these documents are incorporated by reference in this Final EIS, and both should be used
in conjunction with this document.
The public review process did not result in changes requiring a major rewrite of either of the two documents. By
incorporating them by reference, substantial cost savings are achieved.
In this Final EIS, all material in reference to air quality which had been included in the Draft EIS has been deleted. It is
replaced by the Air Quality Supplement. All modifications, corrections, and responses in regard to air quality in this
Final EIS pertain to the Air Quality Supplement.
The Draft EIS describes a proposed joint federal and state coal leasing program for the Fort Union Coal Region to be
initiated on July 28,1983. The document analyzes six alternative levels of leasing, including a No Leasing or
Production Maintenance/By-Pass Leasing and a Regional Coal Team (RCT) preferred alternative. The modifications
and corrections to the Draft EIS and the Air Quality Supplement are in this final statement. Public comments received
on the Draft EIS and Air Quality Supplement at public hearings and by letter are also included, along with the Bureau
of Land Management's (BLM's) responses to those comments.
A limited number of copies of the Draft EIS and the Air Quality Supplement are available at the following locations:
Bureau of Land Management
Montana State Office
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, Montana 59107
Bureau of Land Management
Dickinson District Office
P.O. Box 1229
Dickinson, North Dakota 58601
Bureau of Land Management
Miles City District Office
P.O. Box 940
Miles City, Montana 59301
No final decision on leasing federal coal can be made until at least 30 days after the Final EIS is filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency. Upon completion, filing, and release of this Final EIS, the RCT will recommend
specific tracts for a lease sale and a lease sale schedule to be submitted to the Director of BLM. The Director will
submit the Final EIS, the RCTs proposed lease sale schedule, and his recommendations for a leasing decision to the
Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of each affected state, surface management
agencies, Indian tribes, and the Attorney General, as set forth in the Coal Management Regulations, 43CFR 3420.4,
shall make a final decision on federal coal leasing. If the Secretary's decision is to lease the federal coal, he shall
further determine the leasing level and adopt a final lease sale schedule.
We would like to thank the individuals and organizations whose comments and suggestions have helped us to
prepare this final statement which will lead to more effective management of the public lands. Their interest is
appreciated.
Sincerely yours.
Michael J. Penfold
State Director
■
>
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
♦ *
FINAL
Fort Union Coal Regional
Environmental Impact Statement
February 1983
(to be used with the Draft EIS and Air Quality
Information Supplemental)
Prepared by
Bureau of Land Management
Montana State Office
Billings, Montana
ctatc r\iotr/TV\n> ••
STATE DIRECTOR
-
FORT UNION COAL REGION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
( ) Draft (X) Final
Lead Agency
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
Types of Action
1. Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
2. Abstract
This statement assesses the environmental consequences of six alternative levels of coal development, plus dis-
cussions of developing the Woodson PRLA and the Meridian Exchange Proposal. The alternatives range from
leasing 203.2 million tons of federal coal (7 tracts) to leasing 1 ,803.2 million tons of federal coal (20 tracts). The
statement analyzes the impacts that would occur in Custer, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone, Prairie, Richland,
Roosevelt, Valley, and Wibaux counties in Montana and Burleigh, Dunn, Golden Valley, McKenzie, McLean,
Mercer, Oliver, and Stark counties in North Dakota as a result of coal leasing and development associated with
the alternatives.
3. The six alternatives and their analyses were present for public review in the Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment(EIS) issued in July 1 982 and a supplemental report on air quality issued in September 1 982. These docu-
ments are hereby incorporated into this Final EIS. The location of the Final E1S study area is shown on Map 1 in
the map packet of the Draft EIS.
4. For further information regarding this statement or proposed alternative action contact:
Lloyd Emmons
Project Manager, Fort Union Coal Project
Bureau of Land Management
222 North 32nd Street
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, Montana 59107
(406) 657-6291
SUMMARY
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) here-
by incorporates the Draft EIS and the Air Quality Infor-
mation Supplemental documents which discuss the
proposed leasing of 7 production maintenance/by-
pass and 17 new production coal tracts in eastern
Montana and west-central North Dakota. These tracts
involve the leasing of federal coal administered by the
Bureau of Land Management to meet the leasing target
of .8 to 1 .2 billion tons of federal coal established by the
Secretary of the Interior.
The Regional Coal Team (RCT) formulated six alterna-
tives, with the seven production maintenance/by-pass
tracts being the first alternative. This alternative is
included in each of the five remaining alternatives. The
Woodson PRLA and the Meridian Exchange Proposal
are also discussed in conjunction with Alternative 3.
These alternatives are analyzed with emphasis on the
significant issues and impacts. Site Specific Analyses
(SSAs) and Preliminary Facility Evaluation Reports
(PFERs) were prepared for each tract and served as the
basis for tract ranking and alternative formulation by
the RCT.
Alternative 1 , leasing 203.2 million tons of new federal
coal, would consist of seven production maintenance/
by-pass tracts. No new mines or facilities are associated
with these tracts. The Prevention of Significant Deterio-
ration (PSD) Class I increment is considered to be
consumed at the present. There are no major changes
expected from the continued mining by existing opera-
tors for water, agriculture, land use, economic and
social conditions, and recreation. Cultural sites in the
Glenharold tract have regional significance and may
require special attention. Wildlife habitat would be
decreased. Alternative 1 would not significantly change
the impacts associated with this alternative since min-
ing would continue at existing operations.
Alternative 2, leasing 51 0.4 million tons of new federal
coal, is also expected to show that the PSD Class I
increment is consumed as it will be in the rest of the
alternatives. The Dunn Center tract may be reduced to
protect the Spring Creek alluvial valley floor and the
groundwater supply. Dickinson, North Dakota will need
additional community supply and storage. Individual
agricultural operators may be severely impacted. Crop
losses for the region will be less than one percent.
Wildlife impacts become more severe as more coal
acreage is mined. The Knife River Flint Quarries asso-
ciated with the Dunn Center tract contain important
and irreplaceable cultural information. Outdoor recrea-
tion demand would increase commensurate with popu-
lation increase in all alternatives. Significant population
influxes would cause inflationary pressures and cause
fiscal problems with specific communities. Impacts to
the social organization would be substantial, perma-
nent, and intensive.
Alternative 3, leasing 790.2 million tons of new federal
coal, would provide stress on transportation routes in
North Dakota, add Fort Peck Reservoir as a water
source, and cause additional economic impacts to
specific communities in addition to those discussed in
previous alternatives. Rapid development-related popu-
lation increases could result in severe public service
funding problems, accelerated impacts to the social
organization, and hamper the ability of the communi-
ties to respond.
Alternative 4, leasing 822.4 million tons of new federal
coal, would also have the impacts of previous alterna-
tives. In addition, the Zenith tract could cause degrada-
tion of surface and subsurface water along the Heart
River. Patterson Lake water quality will also be
degraded. Economic and social impacts would be sim-
ilar to previous alternatives except that the makeup of
the individual communities affected would vary.
Alternative 5, leasing 1,031.6 million tons of new fed-
eral coal, would result in the decreased quality of runoff
in the Redwater River. Impacts similar to previous alter-
natives would also occur.
Alternative 6, leasing 1 ,600.0 million tons of new fed-
eral coal, could force Circle, Montana to change their
source of municipal water supply. The Redwater I tract
would further impact the Redwater River valley. The
impacts discussed in previous alternatives would also
occur in this alternative.
The Woodson PRLA would provide for a slight increase
in social and economic impacts over those of Alterna-
tive 3. The Meridian Exchange Proposal may force
Circle, Montana to switch sources for its municipal
water supply. Depending on the size of the conversion
facility, the variation in the social and economic
impacts would be lower or higher than those of Alterna-
tive 3.
The RCT Preferred Alternative was Alternative 3 modi-
fied by removing the Central Bloomfield tract and sub-
stituting the Bloomfield tract and dropping the Burns
Creek tract. This alternative would make 790.2 million
tons of new federal coal available and would have
impacts as described for Alternative 3.
CONTENTS
Introduction i
Part I — Modifications and Corrections 1-1
Part II — Public Comments 2-1
Part III — Responses to Public Comments 3-1
INTRODUCTION
This Ft. Gnion Coal Region Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) incorporates by reference the Draft EIS
which was published in July, 1982, and the Air Quality Information Supplemental to the Draft EIS which was
published in September 1982, as modified and corrected by Part I of this document. Part II of this final document
contains a transcript of the public hearings and letters of comment received from the public on the Draft EIS and the
Air Quality Supplement. Part III contains BLM's responses to these comments.
The Draft EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and released to the public on August 2, 1 982. The
Federal Register of August 6, 1 982, carried a notice of availability and announced public meetings to provide
information and answer questions on the Draft EIS at Bismarck and Hazen, North Dakota, on August 24, 1 982; Circle,
Montana, on August 31, 1982; and Wibaux, Montana, on September 1, 1982. The Federal Register notice also
announced public hearings on September 28 and 29, 1982 at Beulah, North Dakota and Glendive, Montana
respectively, and that written comment on the Draft EIS would be accepted through October 8, 1 982. The Air Quality
Supplement was released to the public on September 1 6, 1 982, and was filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency on September 24, 1982. The Federal Register of September 30, 1982 carried a notice of availability and
extended the public review period from October 8, 1 982 through October 1 9, 1 982. Copies of the Draft EIS and the
Air Quality Supplement were sent to organizations, industry, and individuals on the Ft. Gnion mailing list. Approxi-
mately 1,100 copies of these documents were distributed. Public reading copies were available at BLM offices in
Washington, D.C.; Billings, and Miles City, Montana; Dickinson, North Dakota; and at public libraries throughout the
region.
Copies of the Final EIS will be forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior and to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Copies will also be mailed to all official review agencies, organizations, industry, individuals on the Ft. Gnion mailing
list, and public libraries within the Ft. Gnion region. Copies will also be available upon request at the BLM offices in
Billings and Miles City, Montana, and Dickinson, North Dakota.
PARTI
Modifications and Corrections
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Final EIS contains all the modifications and corrections to the Draft EIS and the Air Quality
Supplement. Included herein are all map corrections and changes in figures and tables. This section also contains
any modifications or corrections made due to changes in policy or guidance. There are also a number of
modifications, corrections, and clarifications included in this section that were made in response to the public
comments that were received.
MODIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS
DRAFT EIS
Summary
Page ii, column 2, paragraph 4, change, "in the Red-
water II tract completely destroying a portion of the
Redwater River valley." to, "in the decreased quality of
runoff in the Redwater River."
Introduction
Page 2, column 1 , paragraph 2, last sentence, change
to, "Site Specific Analysis (SSAs) were completed on all
24 tracts in June 1981 and made available for public
review."
Page 7, column 1 , paragraph 1 , last sentence is deleted.
Page 7, column 2, paragraph 1 under Cultural Fea-
tures, third line, delete "is proposed as a National Regis-
ter District and".
Page 7, column 2, last paragraph, lines 2 and 4, change
"two" to "three."
Page 1 1 , both maps, add surface owner nonconsentto
all of Section 4, R20M, R53E, and delete from tract
Page 1 1 , both maps, delete the EVi, Section 6 and the
NteNWtf, NWMNEM, Section 18.T20M, R53E as these
areas were found to be unsuitable for surface mining.
Page 12. The Burns Creek tract was deleted from the
1 983 coal lease sale.
Page 1 3, both maps, add surface owner nonconsent to
all of Section 4, T20N, R53E, and delete from tract;
delete the E'/2, Section 6, and the N teNWVi, NWViNEM,
Section 18, T20N, R53E as these areas were found to
be unsuitable for surface mining.
Page 17, Surface Ownership map, remove surface
owner nonconsent from the SE'/i, Section 26, T15N,
R60E, Wibaux County, Montana.
Page 17, both maps, delete floodplain areas in
NteNVfcNEM, Section 18, and EteEVfeNEVi, Section 20,
T 1 4 1 N, R 1 05 W. These areas were found to be unsuita-
ble for surface mining.
Page 19, Surface Ownership map, reverse color in
legend for State and private surface.
Page 20, Surface Ownership map, remove surface
owner nonconsent from lot 1, Section 22, T139N,
R106W, Golden Valley County, Morth Dakota, and lots
1 , 2, 3 and 4, Section 30, Tl 3N, R61 E, Wibaux County,
Montana.
Page 21 , both maps, delete the NWViNEtf, NEWNWtt,
Section 22, Tl 6N, R53W. These areas were found to be
unsuitable for surface mining.
Page 24, Surface Ownership map, change the SEVa,
Section 11, T144N, R94W, from federal to private
ownership.
Page 30, both maps, delete W'^SWViNWtt, W2W/2SWA,
Section 14, and NWViNEMNEM, SttNEttNEM,
SEMNEM, Section 26, T143N, R88W. These areas
were found to be unsuitable for surface mining.
Page 34, both maps, delete NEMSEMNWtt, Section 8,
T139N, R98W, and SteSteSteSEM, Section 2, and
NEttNEtt, Section 12, T139N, R99W. These areas
were found to be unsuitable for surface mining.
Page 35, Surface Ownership map, state coal in Section
16.T20N, R56E, is leased.
Chapter 1
Some of the tract boundaries have changed due to
unsuitability criteria application, refusals to consent,
and reassessment of the tracts. Gnsuitability determina-
tion is made during the land use planning process. The
application of the unsuitability criteria has been com-
pleted for the Redwater, West-Central, and Golden Val-
ley Management Framework Plans. The results of these
applications were published and received a public
review and comment period. The final determinations
of the application of the unsuitability criteria are avail-
able from the Miles City and Dickinson District Offices.
The Burns Creek tract has been dropped from all alter-
natives. The unsuitability studies could not be com-
pleted since access to the tract was denied. The incom-
plete studies made it impossible to apply the
unsuitability criteria, so the tract has been dropped
from lease consideration at this time.
Removing the Bums Creek tract from the alternatives
1-1
would reduce the available federal recoverable reserves
by 31 .0 million tons; however this reduction would not
substantially affect the leasing target.
Although Burns Creek has been removed from the
federal leasing consideration, this would not preclude
the area from being developed since one company has
a large block of private coal already under lease. The
analyses in the Draft EIS would be similar if the area is
developed without further federal leasing. If the area is
not developed in the future, the impacts in each alterna-
tive where Burns Creek was included would decrease.
As stated in the Preferred Alternative of the Draft EIS,
the Central Bloomfield tract could no longer be consid-
ered logically minable because of a refusal to consent.
Since the Central Bloomfield tract was a major part of
the Bloomfield tract, the Bloomfield tract was reduced
by 38 million tons of federal coal. The reduction has
made the Bloomfield tract more suitable for electric
power generation. The Bloomfield tract has replaced
Central Bloomfield in Alternative 3 and the Preferred
Alternative. Where the Bloomfield tract has been used
in the other alternatives, it would be considered a power
plant-size tract. An evaluation of this change deter-
mined that the change was not significant enough to
reanalyze each of the alternatives.
The tabulation below shows the federal recoverable
coal tonnages that will be available for those tracts that
have been altered.
Federal Recoverable Reserves
Tract Millions of Tons
Southwest Glendive
Bloomfield
Zenith
Truax
172.2
97.9
130.1
38.2
These changes would result in the following new pro-
duction totals and leasing target for each alternative.
These new production figures should replace the fig-
ures used throughout Chapter 1 in the Draft EIS, both in
the text as well as the tables and figures.
Alternative
Tons x 1 06
Millions of Tc
1
0.0
203.2*
2
510.4
713.6
3
790.2
993.4
4
822.4
1,025.6
5
1,031.6
1,234.8
6
1,600.0
1,803.2
•Represents production maintenance/by-pass tonnages and
not included in the leasing target or new production tonnage.
Page 48, column 2, paragraph 2, next to last line should
read "... Redwater II would be covered . . ."
Page 49, Table 1 -2, change "Existing Total" to "By-Pass
Total".
Page 52, Table 1 -5, change the anticipated dates for the
construction of the facility for the Dunn Center tract
from " 1 989" to " 1 985", and for the Garrison tract from
"1992" to "1988".
Pages 52 through 6 1 , Tables 1 -5 through 1-11, change
"Existing and Mew Production Total" to "By-Pass and
New Production Total".
Pages 52 through 61, Tables 1-5 through 1-11, change
Garrison Tract as follows:
1 . Annual production from "5.7" to "2.8" million tons
per year.
2. Mine facility acreage from "240" to " 1 60".
3. Facility non-potable water from " 1 2" to "6" million
gallons per day.
4. Anticipated date of facility operation from " 1 992"
to "1991".
Reduce Totals as follows:
1. Annual production by "2.9" million tons per year.
2. Mine facility acreage by "80" acres.
3. Facility non-potable water by "6" million gallons
per day.
Page 59, Table 1-10, bottom half, interchange South
Wibaux-Beach and Circle West III.
Page 62, Table 1-12, add "Source: Meridian Land and
Mineral Company".
Page 65, Figure 1-10, legend, change to "Range of
Impacted Wells".
Page 67, Figure 1-12, change title to "Vegetation Types
(Acres)".
Chapter 2
Air Quality
Pages 75 through 85 of the Draft EIS. All material on Air
Quality is deleted and replaced with material in Chapter
2 of the Air Quality Information Supplement.
Water
Page 85, column 2, add the following paragraph after
the last paragraph of the Hydrology section.
"Recharge for the shallow lignite and sand aquifer sys-
tem comes from local precipitation during very wet
periods and seepage from lakes, potholes and sloughs
located in upland positions. When this seepage reaches
a lignite or sand lense its flow becomes horizontal with
very little seepage continuing downward (Groenewold,
1979, Horack, unpub. and Houghton, unpub.). Dis-
charge from this system is through wells, springs, and
into alluvial and glacial channels. Recharge to the alluv-
ial and glacial channels is received from intersecting
lignite and sand aquifers and seepage from the stream
channel during high flow periods. Available data has
identified some areas where the shallow lignite or sand
and alluvial or glacial channel systems are hydrologi-
1-2
cally connected, but in most of the new production tract
areas there is not enough data to quantify the recharge
and discharge sources."
Agriculture
Page 89, column 2, paragraph 1 , line 1 , change "Three
hundred and eleven . . ." to "Two hundred . . ."
Wildlife
Page 91 , column 1 , caption under picture should read
"Mule deer in eastern Montana."
Cultural Features
Page 93, Table 29, in Garrison tract under Stone Circle
add the number 1.
Chapter 3
Air Quality
Pages 99 through 103. All material on Air Quality is
deleted and replaced with material in Chapter 3 of the
Air Quality Supplement.
Water
Page 1 03, column 2, under first paragraph of Water,
insert the following: "Water withdrawal and convey-
ance facilities designed to carry municipal water would
require a water service contract from the U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers. Industrial water facilities would
require a water service contract from the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Page 1 05, column 2, after paragraph on water, add, "To
summarize, disruption of ephemeral streams in the
vicinity of a mine site would be temporary. Drawdown of
groundwater levels would also be temporary. Degrada-
tion of the shallow ground water quality would be long
term."
Page 105, column 1, paragraph 1 , line 6, the sentence
beginning with "The state of Montana" to the end of the
paragraph is changed to the following:
"The state of Montana (Water Reservations and Current
Water Availability in the Yellowstone River Basin, 1 982)
has identified the mean annual availability of 2,055,500
acre-feet of water from the Yellowstone River at Sidney,
Montana. This water is available in addition to the esti-
mated future needs of Montana, Wyoming, and Indian
users. The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that
243,000 acre-feet could be made available annually out
of Yellowtail dam without affecting existing or likely
future uses."
Page 105, column 1, last paragraph, last sentence is
deleted.
Page 1 05, column 2, paragraph 1 , add the following
sentence to this paragraph. "Currently the North
Dakota State Health Department allows disposal of fly
ash wastes only in lined pits designed specifically to
prevent any effect on ground water."
Page 105, column 2, paragraph 2, add immediately
following paragraph, "The Dunn-Nokota methanol pro-
ject would produce no waste materials which are pres-
ently classified as hazardous by EPA."
Page 1 05, column 2, paragraph 4,change "There is no
practical way . . ." to "It is not economically feasible . . ."
Page 1 07, column 1 , paragraph 2, sentence 1 , change,
"completely destroy a portion of the Redwater River
valley" to "decrease the quality of the runoff in the
Redwater River."
Wildlife
Page 1 24, column 1 , paragraph 5, sentence 1 , delete
the entire sentence.
Page 127, column 2, last paragraph, sentence 2, add
"short-term" to the beginning of sentence.
Cultural Features
Page 129, insert following paragraph 1 at end of Alter-
native 2:
Application of the cultural resource unsuitability crite-
rion has demonstrated that the most critical conflict
between coal leasing and archeological sites would be
restricted to two sections (Sections 32 and 34, T145N,
R93W) which are part of both the National Register of
Historic Places eligible Knife River Flint Quarry National
Historic District and a logical mining unit. Whether
these two sections should be found unsuitable for min-
ing has not been decided.
If the two sections are not leased for coal mining, the
entire heart of the Knife River Flint Quarry area would
be protected in a federal coal lease decision. In this case
only outlying sites would be impacted and it is expected
that those values could be successfully mitigated
through data recovery.
If the other alternative occurs and the two sections are
leased, 1 0 sites covering 50 percent of Section 32 and 6
sites covering 30 percent of Section 34 could be
impacted by coal mining. This would cause a signifi-
cant impact to the information contained in the
National Register eligible district. It is uncertain whether
these impacts could be successfully mitigated through
avoidance of specific sites or data collection. The pre-
viously discussed memorandum of understanding
process would have to occur to assess the possibility of
a successful mitigation plan.
Other Land Uses and Values
Page 1 30, column 2, paragraph 4, sentence 3, change
the reference to Major Facility Siting Act in "North
Dakota" to "Montana."
Page 131, column 2, sentence 2 under Alternative 3
should read, "If it is assumed that 60 percent of the
work force for Dunn Center and Werner tract would
pass through Dickinson for access to State Route 22,
this would imply stress for this highway."
1-3
Page 152 at the end of column 1, add the following:
Short Term Usage and Impacts Versus Long
Term Effects
Short-term impacts to water resources would continue
throughout the life of project. The hydrologic balance
would be disrupted in the vicinity of a mine and its
associated facility. Ephemeral surface water in the
immediate vicinity of the development would expe-
rience small changes in flow, sediment loads, and dis-
solved chemical concentrations. Within a mile or so of
the mines, groundwater levels would be lowered and
quality would be degraded as the shallow lignite aquifer
is removed. Following reclamation of the area, surface
water conditions would return to approximate pre-mine
productivity; however, there would be a long-term
impact to the shallow vein spoil aquifer system which
may remain degraded indefinitely. Another long-term
impact would be the increased expense to the land
owner to operate and maintain the deeper replacement
wells.
For analysis purposes, successful reclamation to pre-
mining levels of agricultural productivity was assumed.
All the impacts discussed were quantified over the
short-term— the time required to meet bonding
requirements. No residual long-term agricultural
impacts were projected. There would be very few short-
term impacts on cultural resources, for the destruction
of any cultural resource with or without adequate mit-
igation is a long-term negative impact, no matter how
complete all of the information from an archeological
site. However, in many cases these losses are accepted
for valid reasons.
Changes in land use due to coal mining would be
short-term for the land would revert to its pre-mining
use after reclamation. Changes in land use due to
facility development would be long-term since the facili-
ties are scheduled for a 30-50 year mine life. New roads,
transmission lines, railroad spurs, etc., can be consid-
ered long-term since they would be used as long as the
mine is in operation. Changes in the existing communi-
ties may be considered long-term for although the
commitment of land to a specific use does not preclude
another use, an investment in residential, commercial,
or other facilities makes the change costly.
Changes in the visual quality of the region would be
long-term because the mines are programmed for a
30-50 year life span. The facilities would be highly vis-
ible and would add an industrial "look" to the area.
The aesthetic effect of specific areas would be short-
term due to the reclamation which would occur. How-
ever, the entire area would look disturbed as long as
mining takes place.
Depending upon the amount of funding available, the
impacts to outdoor recreational facilities could be
short-term or long-term. Certainly the available facilities
would be more crowded. Hunting and fishing areas
would receive more pressure, and there would be an
increase in landowner/hunter problems. As monies
become available to enlarge existing facilities or pro-
vide new ones, this problem should gradually decrease
in significance.
The great majority of the economic impacts from Ft.
Onion coal development result from population in-
migration due to short-term, construction-phase
related employment opportunities. As the graphics in
appendices G and H show, this short-term period, in
most cases 3-6 years, contains the preponderance of
population, employment, and fiscal impacts due to the
labor intensive nature of the construction phase. There
would be greatly increased business and employment
opportunities during the short run, along with adverse
impacts associated with large increases in population
and coincident impact on public services. This general
phenomena would be a question of degree among
alternatives 2-6. The overall level of beneficial and
adverse impacts would increase from alternative 2 to
alternative 6.
During the long-term operations period (approximately
40 years), economic changes would be much more
stable since employment and population levels would
not change significantly. Those people employed as
part of the operations work force would benefit from
long-term employment opportunities as would busi-
nesses which provide goods and services to the plants
and workers. Depending on the circumstances, some
communities could experience long-term impacts on
their public services, while others would be successful
in mitigating or avoiding these impacts altogether.
Those communities which are nearby the mine plant
site and which have a relatively large range of public
and private services to offer would be the towns which
would experience the greatest economic and social
impacts as both construction and operations workers
would relocate to these communities in response to
nearby employment opportunities.
In the social analysis, short-term refers to the construc-
tion phase while long-term refers to the operations
phase of development. The social assessment is based
primarily upon the population increases that occur as a
result of the development. The short-term period, in
most cases 3-6 years, contains the majority of the popu-
lation increases. Generally, short-term impacts include
changes in both community social organization and
social well-being increases as the service availability
catches up with population growth. Changes in
bility catches up with population growth. Changes in
community organization are permanent and extend
into the long-term. Overall impacts increase in magni-
tude from alternative 2 to 6 in both the short and
long-term.
Initial attitudes toward development may be modified
as the project proceeds through the short and long-
term phases. These modifications would depend upon
1-4
the severity of the impacts to the community and
whether or not the individual benefitted from the devel-
opment.
In the preferred alternative, about three billion tons of
coal would be mined in the next 40 years. Of this total, a
little over 990 million tons would be federal coal.
Approximately 200 million tons of the federal coal
would be mined by existing mining operation, while the
remaining would be used to support new mines. If no
leasing occurs, the coal in the tracts near existing mines
in by-pass tracts would eventually be by-passed and
would not be mined.
Irreversible, Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources
The only irretrievable loss to the hydrologic system
would be the shallow aquifer system which would be
disrupted by mine development. This system would
remain disrupted for an indefinite period and may never
be restored.
Mo irreversible or irretrievable impacts to agricultural
productivity would be expected, given successful rec-
lamation to meet bonding requirements.
Once cultural resources have been destroyed, they can
never be replaced and are an irretrievable loss. In the
case of the extensive and complex sites associated with
flint quarrying on the Dunn Center tract and the sites in
the Missouri River Breaks on the Glenharold tract, it
may never be possible to recover enough information
to make destruction of these cultural resources an
acceptable alternative.
Transmission lines, pipelines, facility development, rail-
road spurs, and new roads may be an irretrievable
commitment of land. Land used for new businesses,
service facilities, and homes for the expected influx of
workers can be considered an irretrievable commit-
ment of the land resource since it is highly unlikely the
land would be restored to its former use. Materials used
to construct the various facilities and homes may be
considered an irretrievable commitment of resources.
From an aesthetic standpoint there would be no irre-
trievable commitment of land form since the mined
land would be restored to its original form. If the facili-
ties and their attendant roads, power lines, and railroad
spurs are not dismantled after the coal is consumed,
there would be a permanent, negative effect on the
aesthetics and visual quality of the area.
There should be no irretrievable loss of recreation
opportunities and resources, and they may even be
enhanced if new facilities are built to accommodate the
large influx of workers. Hunting and fishing would
receive a negative impact since more people would be
competing for limited resources; however, this should
revert to normal when the life of the mines and facilities
are completed.
The construction of the mines and facilities associated
with the various alternatives would require significant,
but at this time unquantifiable, amounts of construction
material. For the most part, these items would be irre-
trievably committed to the process. Wood, steel,
copper, aluminum, plastic, and concrete would be the
items used most extensively in the construction of
mines, electric power plants, and other coal conversion
facilities. Salvage would be possible at plant phaseout
for some of these items. The liquid fossil fuels used for
haulage and the onsite electric power consumption
would be irretrievably committed as well. In addition,
increased energy development in this area would result
in irretrievably committed financial resources, capital,
labor, services, and materials utilized in the provision of
public services to meet the increased needs of a new
development-related population which would migrate
to the region.
The communities impacted in alternatives 2 through 6,
that had not undergone previous development, would
experience permanent changes in their social organi-
zation due to population increases. These impacts
would result in an irretrievable loss of the agriculturally
oriented, close-knit, slow paced, informal, small town
atmospheres currently found in these communities.
The number of communities that would be affected
increases from alternative 2 to alternative 6. In addition,
during the construction stage, impacted communities
would experience temporary but irretrievable losses in
social well being due to the impact of large population
increases on public and private services. In a small
number of cases, growth would be so rapid and sub-
stantial that permanent changes in social well being
might occur. This would be most likely to occur in
Alternative 6. The attitudes of those local people who
wish to retain the rural, agricultural orientation of their
communities and the surrounding countryside may be
irreversibly opposed to the development.
Chapter 4
No modifications or corrections.
Chapter 5
Mo modifications or corrections.
Appendices
Appendix A
Page A-3, add to end of Appendix:
Clean Water
Section 404; 33
Regulates the
Such activities
Act of 1977
CISC 1344
discharge of
require permits
dredged or fill
or are
material into
authorized
the Nation's
under
waterways,
Nationwide
lakes, and
permit.
wetlands.
1-5
River and
Section 10; 33
Prohibits the
The construc-
Harbor Act of
USC 403
unauthorized
tion of any
1899
obstruction or
structure, exca-
alteration of the
vation or depo-
U.S. navigable
sition of any
waters.
material, or any
other works
affecting navi-
gable water is
unlawful unless
authorized by
Secretary of
Army.
Appendix B
Page A-4, add the following after the second paragraph
in column 3: "requires an environmental impact
statement for major state actions which have the poten-
tial to significantly affect the human environment."
The following additions or corrections should be made
to the codification of the Montana State Legislation:
1 . Montana Department of State Lands
State Antiquities Act, Section 22-3-401 , et. seq. MCA
2. Board of Land Commissioners
Section 22-3-424, MCA
Section 77-3-102, MCA
Add: Section 77-2-102, 103, MCA
Authorizes Board to grant easements for siting struc-
tures, roads, etc. on state lands that may be associated
with energy development.
The North Dakota Land Development should read,
"North Dakota Land Department."
Pages A- 7 through All. All material on Air Quality is
deleted and replaced with material in Appendices of the
Air Quality Supplement.
Appendix I
Page A-25, column 1 , first paragraph, add the following:
"This section is designed to provide the reader with an
overview of the mitigation measures/processes in Mon-
tana and North Dakota. Therefore, many of the details
of the state impact assistance laws were not included.
For more detailed information regarding the individual
state regulations for impact assistance constraints and
responsibilities contact would be made with the respec-
tive state agency."
Page A-26, add "Major Facility Siting Act" between the
next to the last paragraph and the heading "Adequate
Lead Time."
Page A-29, delete the last paragraph of column 2.
Page A-30, delete column 1. Delete column 2, para-
graphs 1 and 2.
Page A-31 , column 1 , paragraph 3, line 5, change "8.7"
to "8.75."
Page A-31, column 2, after the last paragraph add:
"One Montana statute which could provide impact
assistance to local governments is known as Tax Pre-
payment for New Industrial Facilities ( 1 5-1 6-201 , MCA).
By applying this law, a local government could require
the owners of a new industrial facility (e.g., coal gasifica-
tion plant, coal-fired electrical generation plant) to pre-
pay the property taxes on the plant, thus providing
"upfront" revenues which could be used to provide for
the needed increase in local governmental services.
Only the governmental taxing jurisdiction in which the
industrial facility is to be located could require prepay-
ment (e.g., county government). This statute does not
apply to those jurisdictions which would be affected but
would not have the plant located within their borders
(e.g., city government, adjacent county government).
MAJOR FACILITY SITING ACT
The Montana Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA), enacted
in 1 973, provides for comprehensive review of propos-
als to construct and operate certain kinds of facilities for
generating, converting or transmitting energy in Mon-
tana. The Act covers: ( 1 ) facilities that can generate 50
megawatts or more of electricity; (2) facilities that can
produce 25 million cubic feet or more of gas per day;
(3) facilities that can produce 25,000 barrels of liquid
hydrocarbon products per day; (4) uranium enrich-
ment facilities; (5) facilities that can use, refine or con-
vert 500,000 tons of coal or more per year; (6) electric
transmission lines greater than 69 kilovolts capacity,
with certain exceptions for lines covering short distan-
ces; (7) facilities for developing and using geothermal
resources capable of producing 25 million Btu per hour
or more; (8) facilities for in situ coal gasification; and
(9) pipelines leading from or to a facility as defined
above. Facilities under exclusive federal jurisdiction are
exempt. Oil and natural gas facilities are also exempt.
The Major Facility Siting Act has four provisions which
are important for impact mitigation. First, the Act
requires all parties planning to construct a facility (as
degined by the Act) within the ensuing 1 0 years to file a
long-range plan with the Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation (DNRC). All proposed
facilities must be adequately described in a long-range
plan at least two years before DNRC may accept an
application. The plans are submitted on April first of
each year and any new plans are generally covered by
the press. The plans thus serve to notify the public of
any proposed facilities substantially in advance of when
they will actually be constructed.
Second, the Act requires that an application for a facility
must be filed with the DNRC. The application must
include a description of the proposed facility, with dis-
cussion of alternative sites, an explanation of need for a
utility facility, discussion of efforts to promote conserva-
tion and reasonable alternative energy sources, and a
filing fee, based on the estimated construction cost of
the facility, to finance the state's evaluation.
The DNRC has 90 days to determine whether an appli-
cation is complete; that is, whether it contains the
1-6
information required by the law and associated rules.
When the DNRC accepts the application as complete, it
then has 22 months (in the case of generating plants)
or 1 2 months (in the case of small transmission lines)
to do an independent analysis, including preparation of
an EIS under MEPA, holding public hearings, and pre-
paring a final report to the Board of Natural Resources
and Conservation (BNRC).
In the meantime, the Department of Health and Envi-
ronmental Sciences and the Board of Health have a
year, plus an additional six months if applicable, to
determine whether the project will comply with air and
water quality standards, and other laws administered by
the Department of Health and Board of Health.
Note that this period of state evaluation contains oppor-
tunity for working with the affected local communities
to analyze impacts and suggest mitigation strategies. It
also has a mandatory public hearing where the public
can comment on DNRCs and the Department or
Board of Health findings.
The third provision of the Siting Act that provides
opportunities for mitigation is the Board of Natural
Resources and Conservation decision as to whether to
issue a certificate for project construction. The Board is
a seven-member citizen board, appointed by the Gov-
ernor. A certificate may not be granted unless the
Board finds and determines: (1) the nature of the
probable environmental impact; (2) that the facility
represents the minimum adverse environmental
impact, considering the state of available technology
and the economics of various alternatives; (3) that the
facility is consistent with regional plans for expanding
utility grids and will serve system economy and reliabil-
ity; (4) that the facility's proposed location conforms to
state and local laws and regulations; (5) that the Board
of Health has certified that the facility will not violate air
and water quality standards and implementation plans;
and (6) for a utility application, that the facility serves the
public interest, convenience and necessity. Need,
environmental impact, benefits to the applicant and the
state, effects of resulting economic activity, and effects
on public health, safety and welfare must be considered
in making these determinations.
After receiving the DNRCs final report on the proposed
project, the Board has 1 1 months to make its decision.
As part of its decisionmaking process, it must hold
public hearings under the Montana Administrative
Procedures Act. These are contested case hearings
involving attorneys, witnesses, and cross-examination.
The affected local government must be a party to the
proceedings or state why it will not be. The applicant, of
course, participates. Citizen groups and industry
groups usually participate also. The board must con-
sider all the evidence and prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law. It has three options in granting the
Certificate: ( 1 ) Deny a Certificate; (2) Issue a Certificate
for the project as proposed by the applicant; or (3) Issue
a Certificate for the project, but with conditions att-
ached. It is this power to condition the Certificate that
enables the Board to specify mitigation that the appli-
cant must follow. Certificates may be revoked for failure
to meet safety standards or failure to comply with any
other conditions imposed by the Board. Unlike Mon-
tana's mining laws, the Board is not restricted in the
kinds of mitigation it can specify. Thus socioeconomic
and cultural mitigation measures can be required.
The fourth important provision of the Siting Act from
the point of view of mitigation is the requirement that
DNRC must monitor the construction and operation of
the facility to ensure that the Board's conditions are
being met. The applicant must pay for the monitoring
program. If the Board finds that a condition is not being
met, it can revoke the Certificate. This enforcement
power has two benefits. First, it ensures that migitation
efforts are carried out. Second, it provides information
on whether the mitigation measures are succeeding or
failing to solve the problems, whether the anticipated
problems turned out to be real ones, or whether unan-
ticipated problems developed. This information is valu-
able for future impact assessments.
Appendix K
The following subfactors were used in making the rank-
ing determinations.
Coal Economics
Coal Quantity and Availability
Coal Conservation and Maintenance of Production
Energy Production
Likelihood of Leasing and Production
Natural Environment
Minerals other than Coal
Air Qualtiy
Water
Wildlife
Cultural Features
Amenity Values
Special Management Values
Other Land Use and Transportation
Reclamation Potential
Social Economics
Community Service Assessment
Jobs
Agricultural Values
Agricultural Operations
Lifestyle and Social Structure
Public Attitudes
Consistency with other Plans and Policies
Land Owners
Inflation
References
Water
Page R-2, 16th reference listed under Water:
1-7
Remove the Bureau of Reclamation as a co-author with
the Montana State Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation of the document "Water Reservations
and Current Water Availability in the Yellowstone River
Basin." Change the publication date from 1981 to
1982.
Agriculture
Page R-3, add the following references:
Bridgeman, G.H., and R.L. Lang, 1976. Resistance of
Desert Plants of Wyoming to Sulfur Dioxide Injury
in American Phytopathological Society Proceed-
ings. Vol. 3, p.225.
Davis, C.R., et al. 1966. Sulfur Dioxide Fomigations of
Range Grasses Native to South Eastern Arizona
in Journal of Range Management, Vol. 19, pp.
60-64.
Ferenbaugh, R.W. 1978. Effects of Prolonged Expo-
sure of Oryzosis Hymenoides to Sulfur Dioxide in
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. Vol. 10, pp. 27-31.
Harrington, Neil. Montana Department of Natural
Resources, personal communiction. November
8, 1982.
Heitschmidt, R.K., et al. 1978. Effect of Controlled Lev-
els of Sulfur Dioxide on Western Wheatgrass in a
South Eastern Montana Grassland in Journal of
Applied Ecology. Vol. 14, pp. 859-868.
Holmann, L, etal. 1981. Livestock and Vegetative Per-
formance on Reclaimed and Nonmined Range-
land in North Dakota in Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation. Vol. 3, pp. 41-44.
Lavenroth, W.K., et al. 1979. Sulfur Accumulation in
Western Wheatgrass Exposed to Controlled Sul-
fur Dioxide on Western Wheatgrass in a South
Eastern Montana Grassland in Journal of App-
lied Ecology. Vol. 14, pp. 859-868.
Ludwick, J.D., et al. 1981. Air Quality Measurement in
the Coal Fired Power Plant Environment of Col-
strip, Montana in Atmospheric Environment. Vol.
14, pp. 523-532.
Milchunas, D.G., et al. 1 981 . Forage Quality of Western
Wheatgrass Exposed to Sulfur Dioxide in Jour-
nal of Range Management. Vol. 34, pp. 282-285.
Munshower, Frank. Reclamation Research Unit, Mon-
tana State University personal communication.
November 3, 1982.
Nirander, Safoya. North Dakota Public Service Com-
mission, personal communication. November 8,
1982.
Power, J.F., et al. 1 981 . Effects of Topsoil and Subsoil
Thickness on Soil Water Content and Crop Pro-
duction on a Disturbed Soil in Soil Science
Society of America Journal. Vol. 45, pp. 1 24- 1 28.
Preston, E.M., 1979. The Ecological Implications of
Chronic Sulfur Dioxide Exposure for Native
Grasslands, report for 72nd Annual meeting, Air
Pollution Control Association. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Williamson, R.L, 1980. Re-establishing Woody Draws
on the North Great Plains After Mining: The First
Steps in Symposium of the Soil Conservation
Society of America. Billings, Montana.
Williamson, R.L., et al. 1 981 . Physical and Environmen-
tal Factors of Woodland Ecosystems on the
Glenharold Mine Reserve in Western North
Dakota in Proceedings of the North Dakota
Academy of Science. Vol. 35, 8.
AIR QUALITY SUPPLEMENT
Chapter 2
All material in the Draft EIS on Air Quality is deleted and
replaced with the Air Quality Supplement. All modifica-
tions and corrections to Air Quality pertain to the Air
Quality Supplement.
Page ST, column 2, paragraph 2, immediately follow-
ing "annual mean" at the end of paragraph add, "Fig-
ure 2-2 indicates a drought index, which is not a fluctua-
tion of annual precipitation, but rather a measure of soil
moisture balance which includes precipitation."
Page S-2, column 1, last paragraph, line 5, after "lead
(Pb)," add "organic compounds."
Page S-3, column 2, last paragraph, after the last sen-
tence add, "It should be noted that the State Air Quality
Bureau has proposed a new rule which would set a
statewide SO2 baseline date as of March 26, 1 979. The
final PSD rule may contain a county-by-county or an
impact area mechanism for triggering baseline dates."
Page S-5, column 1, after major heading "Acid Rain,"
add, "The following literature review is not intended to
be an exhaustive nor comprehensively referenced
technical review but a general summary of current
information with emphasis on the controversial status
of the subject. This discussion does not necessarily
reflect the position of the Department of the Interior
(see p. S-7, column 2, paragraph 2)."
Page S-5, column 2, line 2, change 1970 to 1979.
Page S-5, column 2, end of second paragraph after
"acid." Add, "The literature reports that various ions in
different combinations are found including ammo-
nium sulfate."
Page S-6, Table 2-2, add "Proposed" before "Integral"
in title.
Page S-8, column 1, line 1, delete the work "residual."
1-8
Page S-9, Table 2-3. Add following footnote, "State and
federal regulations for the prevention of significant
deterioration provide that the short-term (3 and 24-
hour) increments can be exceeded only once per year."
Chapter 3
Page S-l 1 , the term "adverse" is hereby deleted wher-
ever used in this Air Quality chapter.
Page S-l 1 , column 2, end of first paragraph, add: "The
leasing of coal is no guarantee that a mine-mouth
facility will be allowed to use the coal. A site-specific
review of a proposed project such as a power plant,
gasification plant, or a liquefaction plant would have to
be performed and evaluated by the respective permit-
ting agencies in North Dakota and Montana, as well as
be acceptable to the Federal Land Manager in Preven-
tion of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas and
the Environmental Protection Agency. This end-use
analysis would take place before any of the new facilities
would be considered for a permit to construct or oper-
ate.
The generic facilities studied in this draft are assumed
to have emission control devices and subsequently
emission rates similar to the types of facilities which
have been permitted to date. This does not take into
account technological advancements which could take
place over the next 1 0 to 1 5 years before a specific type
plant is operated at a specific base tract. In that sense,
this document may be over estimating the air quality
impacts."
Page S-l 4, column 1, paragraph 3, sentence 3 is
replaced with "MESOPCJFF was adapted by the North
Dakota State Department of Health for mesoscale air
quality analysis in North Dakota (NDSDH, 1982)."
Page S-l 5, column 1, first complete paragraph, sen-
tence 3 is deleted since the performance accuracy of
the MESOPGFF model has not actually been estab-
lished.
Page S-16, column 1, paragraph 1, line 8, insert
"-North" after "TRNP."
Page S-l 7, column 1 , paragraph 2, line 7, change "over-
lap with" to contribution to."
Page S-l 7, column 2, paragraph 2, line 4, after "con-
centrations" delete period and add, "resulting from all
Leasing Alternatives."
Page ST 7, Table 3-3, second column heading, change
"Baseline 1975-1977" to "Baseline 1975-1997."
Page S-27, column 1, paragraph 2, line 1, after "incre-
ments" add, "(in this study)."
Insert the following between pages S-32 and S-33:
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of regional air quality
modeling analysis which assesses the cumulative sul-
1-9
fur dioxide (SO2) impacts at Theodore Roosevelt
National Park- South Gnit (TRNP-S) from coal resource
development proposed by the Bureau of Land Man-
agement (BLM). This modeling analysis was recom-
mended by the National Park Service (NPS) because of
the proximity of some of the tracts to the South Gnit and
because the Air Quality Information Supplemental
(AQIS) to the Draft EIS prepared by BLM for proposed
coal leasing within the Ft. Onion coal region only consi-
dered worst-case impacts on the North Gnit of the
TRNP. Results of the regional air quality impact analysis
conducted previously were documented in the Air
Quality Supplement and in a detailed technical report
prepared for BLM by ECOS Management Criteria
(BLM, 1982 b).
The NPS recently analyzed potential air quality impacts
at TRNP from existing and proposed major emission
sources (emission sources subject to PSD review) in
western North Dakota (NPS, 1982). End-use facilities
associated with the Ft. Gnion coal leasing project were
not included in the NPS analysis. Regional scale model-
ing of the emissions, performed for the NPS analysis by
the North Dakota State Department of Health, showed
that allowable PSD Class I SO2 increments would be
consumed and exceeded under worst-case conditions.
The 24-hour average incremental concentrations at
TRNP-S were predicted to be 15-19 ug/m3 during a
72-hour meteorological episode starting January 10
( 1 964 meteorological conditions). In evaluation of the
potential effects of sulfur dioxide at these levels on
sensitive biological species in the Park, the NPS con-
cluded that no unacceptable adverse effects would be
expected, although the predicted sulfur dioxide con-
centrations are not far below the adverse effect level.
The particular meteorological episode referred to
above represented the worst-case scenario for existing
and pending PSD sources, but not necessarily for the
BLM Ft. Gnion coal leasing sources. It was not modeled
in the Ft. Gnion coal leasing air quality study. However,
because of the NPS finding that SO2 concentrations for
this episode and group of emission sources would be
close to an adverse effects level, it became important to
determine how much the SO2 concentration might be
increased by the Ft. Gnion coal leasing project under
the same scenario, and to evaluate whether the result-
ing higher level might reach the adverse effects level,
particularly with respect to the most sensitive vegeta-
tion species, lichens.
Thus, the specific objective of the present modeling
analysis is to predict incremental and cumulative
ground level SO2 at TRNP-S resulting from emission
sources in the baseline inventories developed for 1 975
and 1997, and those proposed by the BLM for coal
leasing Alternatives 3 and 6 during the January 10-13,
1 964, meteorological episode lasting for 72 hours. The
predicted SO2 concentrations are compared with
allowable PSD increments and with published data on
SO2 concentrations reported to be injurious to sensi-
tive plant species found at TRNP-S.
METHODOLOGIES AND ASSUMPTIONS
The regional air quality model MESOPUFF was
employed to calculate SO2 impacts at TRNP-S from
emission sources located within the modeling grid
described in the earlier air quality analyses (Figure 1 ).
One-hour, 3-hour, and 24-hour average concentrations
of SO2 and sulfates (SO4) were calculated by
MESOPCIFF for eight receptors selected by the
NDSDH for the TRNP-South Unit (Schock, 1982).
Table 1 presents the grid coordinates of these recep-
tors defined relative to the origin of the NDSDH model-
ing grid, and to the origin of the modeling grid selected
by ECOS. The NDSDH and ECOS modeling grids have
different origins, as each was arbitrarily selected for
different study purposes.
TABLE 1
RECEPTORS LOCATED AT TRNP-SOUTH UNIT
Receptor
Number
Grid Coordinates
NDSDH ECOS
X Y X Y
1
3.50
5.00
10.14
6.62
2
3.67
5.00
10.31
6.62
3
3.83
5.00
10.47
6.62
4
3.33
5.17
9.96
6.76
5
3.50
5.17
10.14
6.76
6
3.67
5.17
10.31
6.76
7
3.17
5.33
9.80
6.90
8
3.33
5.33
9.96
6.90
MESOPUFF modeling runs were conducted using the
meteorological input data assembled by the NDSDH
for the 72-hour episode occurring between 1 200 GMT
(0600 CST) January 10, 1964, and 1200 GMT (0600
CST) January 1 3, 1 964. The preprocessor MESOPAC
was used to generate all meteorological inputs required
by the MESOPUFF model. All upper-air and surface
meteorological data available in the 1 964 meteorologi-
cal data base developed by the NDSDH were input to
MESOPAC. Table 2 shows meteorological inputs for
three rawinsonde stations at Bismarck, Glasgow, and
Rapid City, which are the closest stations to the TRNP-
South Unit. In general, winds were light to moderate,
especially during the second day of the episode.
Atmospheric conditions were generally slightly stable
with limited mixing. The average of the mixing heights
shown in Table 2 is roughly 400 meters (m). These
atmospheric conditions tend to build up pollutant con-
centrations and, hence, are conducive to high ground-
level impacts.
Four modeling runs of the MESOPUFF model were
performed to predict SO2 and SO4 concentrations at
the eight receptors in TRNP-S. These runs were
designed to estimate impacts from emission sources in
the 1975 and 1997 inventories, and from sources pro-
posed for BLM Leasing Alternative 3 and 6. Emission
rates and stack parameters of the modeled sources
were tabulated and referenced in the Draft Air Quality
Supplement and the backup technical report (BLM,
1982 b). The 1975 and 1997 inventories of non-BLM
projects are reproduced herein in Tables 3 and 4,
respectively, for convenience.
Outputs from MESOPUFF consist of hourly, 3-hour,
and 24-hour running averages of SO2 and SO4 pre-
dicted at each of the eight receptors. To calculate total
ambient SO2 concentrations, the background concen-
trations derived and used in the air quality analysis are
assumed to be applicable. These background values
for SO2 are tabulated in Table 5.
MODELING RESULTS
In the following paragraphs, predicted concentrations
at eight receptors located in the TRNP-South Unit are
summarized and discussed for each of the four
MESOPUFF modeling runs. Total ambient SO2 con-
centrations are shown in the last part of this section
(Cumulative Ambient Pollutant Concentrations).
Incremental Pollutant Concentrations at TRNP-S from
1 975 Emission Sources
Maximum SO2 and SO4 concentrations predicted at
each receptorfor emission sources in the 1976 inven-
tory are shown in Table 6. For SO2, maximum Thour,
3-hour and 24-hour averages were predicted to be
32.78 ug/m3, 23.37 ug/m3 and 6.27 ug/m3, respec-
tively, These incremental concentrations would be
added to the background concentrations to obtain the
total ambient pollutant concentrations, as described
later under Cumulative Ambient Pollutant Concentra-
tions.
Incremental Pollutant Concentrations at TRNP-S from
1 997 Emission Sources
Predicted maximum SO2 and SO4 incremental con-
centrations from 1 997 emission sources are tabulated
in Table 7. For SO2, maximum 1-hour, 3-hour, and
24-hour averages were calculated to be 33.34 ug/m3,
32.47 ug/m3 and 16.18 ug/m3, respectively. From this
table, it can be concluded that both the 3-hour and
24-hour allowable PSD Class I increments for SO2 are
consumed at TRNP-S by existing and pending PSD
sources compiled in the 1 997 inventory. This finding is
in agreement with the modeling results obtained pre-
viously by the NDSDH (NPS, 1 982). These incremental
concentrations would be added to the sum of the back-
ground and 1 975 incremental concentrations to obtain
the total ambient pollutant concentrations, as des-
cribed later under Cumulative Ambient Pollutant Con-
centrations.
1-10
1-11
TABLE 2
SELECTED METEOROLOGICAL INPUT DATA FOR JANUARY 10-13 EPISODE
850-mb
* Winds
Time
(GMT* Hour-
Speed
Direction
Mixing Height
Atmospheric
Julian Date)
Station
(m/s)*
(deg)*
(m) '
Stability Class
12-010
Bismarck
7.0
197
310.0
5
Glasgow
9.0
294
401.0
5
Rapid City
1.0
331
300.0
5
00-01 1
Bismarck
7.0
169
460.0
4
Glasgow
1.0
307
253.0
3
Rapid City
12.0
335
500.0
4
12-011
Bismarck
8.0
80
100.0
6
Glasgow
1.9
56
403.0
5
Rapid City
4.0
73
295.0
5
00-012
Bismarck
5.0
80
309.0
3
Glasgow
3.0
237
496.0
4
Rapid City
3.0
27
400.0
3
12-012
Bismarck
3.0
253
100.0
6
Glasgow
4.0
292
298.0
5
Rapid City
5.0
357
202.0
6
00-013
Bismarck
7.0
257
450.0
3
Glasgow
15.0
236
806.0
4
Rapid City
5.0
192
496.0
4
12-013
Bismarck
15.0
250
362.0
5
Glasgow
13.0
297
300.0
5
Rapid City
7.0
280
00.0
6
GMT Greenwich Mean Time
mb millibar
m/s meters per second
deg degree
1-12
TABLE 3
EMISSIONS SOURCES FOR 1975 BASELINE
Emission Rates
Emission Parameters
Name
SOo
<g/sr
TSP
(g/s)
N02
(g/s)
Stack
Height (m
Diameter
) (m)
Temp.
(K)**
Exit
(m/s)
RM Heskett 1
91.7
0.8
17.6
91.4
2.1
447.4
15.8
RM Heskett I!
223.5
1.9
43.0
91.4
3.6
426.9
12.7
AMOCO Boiler 1
27.5
0.1
8.7
31.4
1.7
439.1
9.8
AMOCO Boiler 2
27.5
0.1
8.7
31.4
1.7
439.1
9.8
AMOCO Boiler 3
27.5
0.1
8.7
30.5
1.7
439.1
9.8
AMOCO CO Furnace
90.1
7.1
1.7
60.7
3.4
552.3
7.9
AMOCO Alk Furnace
20.2
0.0
5.3
53.3
1.9
444.0
8.0
Basin Leland Olds I
874.0
3.2
305.4
106.7
5.3
451.3
16.7
Basin Leland Olds II
1723.7
16.1
731.5
152.4
6.7
455.2
18.3
UPA Stanton
513.0
20.9
272.4
77.7
4.6
404.1
27.2
Milton R. Young 1
575.6
2.6
383.8
91.4
5.8
449.7
21.3
Milton R. Young II
710.7
21.3
592.2
167.6
7.6
438.6
20.3
WJ. Neal 1
25.4
1.0
40.7
42.4
1.8
478.0
25.6
WJ. Neal II
25.4
0.7
40.7
42.4
1.8
461.0
24.3
Montana SO2 Flares 1*
2421.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Montana SO2 Flares II*
3632.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Montana-Dakota Utilities
131.0
191.4
65.3
61.0
2.1
474.7
43.6
Holly Sugar
0.45
29.2
0.0
78.0
3.2
493.0
10.0
N. Cheyenne Forest Prods
0.0
16.8
0.0
9.1
.8
589.0
5.87
•Estimated emissions from gas flares in Roosevelt County (I) and Richland County (II).
** g/s — grams per second
K - Kelvin
Source: North Dakota State Department of Health and Montana Air Quality Bureau.
1-13
TABLE 4
EMISSIONS SOURCES FOR 1997 BASELINE
Emission Rates
Emission Parameters
Name
so2
(g/sr
TSP
(g/s)
N02
(g/s)
Stack
Height (m
Diameter
) (m)
Temp.
(K)**
Exit
(m/s)
Coal Creek
Units 1 and 2
1598.0
132.0
931.4
201.0
6.7
404.6
27.2
Coyote
673.0
56.1
492.7
152.0
6.4
374.0
27.2
ANG
Main 1 and 2
Start 1
Start 2
338.4
60.0
13.6
34.8
0.0
0.0
196.6
8.0
1.0
121.9
48.8
48.8
4.9
3.2
3.2
469.1
1366.3
1366.3
21.4
16.8
1.3
Antelope Valley
Units 1 and 2
484.6
53.0
621.2
182.9
7.0
356.3
23.2
Warren Petroleum
Claus Incinerator
81.7
0.0
0.0
59.4
1.8
810.9
5.2
Western Gas
Claus Incinerator
28.5
0.0
0.0
30.5
0.46
866.3
19.8
Antelope Valley
Unit 3
474.7
23.7
355.9
182.9
7.6
356.3
25.0
Nokota
327.6
14.1
556.9
152.4
11.2
394.0
12.2
St. Anthony
Units 1 and 2
415.0
47.4
711.8
182.9
7.6
356.3
25.0
MP&L
Unitl
892.1
44.6
892.1
213.4
10.6
340.8
12.6
Koch Hydrocarbon
26.0
0.0
0.0
45.7
0.6
894.1
12.7
Kerr McGee
55.3
0.0
0.0
61.0
0.2
1000.0
112.3
Perry Petrolane
7.9*
0.0
0.0
54.9
0.1
1000.0
99.4
Shell Oil
44.8
0.0
0.0
61.0
0.2
1000.0
56.2
Phillips Petroleum
11.8
0.0
0.0
61.0
0.3
1273.0
20.0
AMOCO
Claus Incinerator
31.4
0.0
0.0
45.7
1.1
810.8
12.2
Western Energy, Rosebud
1.86
194.1
31.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Montana Power, Colstrip
Units 1 and 2
188.3
31.7
500.5
152.4
5.03
366.3
32.0
Peabody Coal, Colstrip
0.6
39.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Poplar River Power Plant
Coronach, Sask
1352
56.7
454
122
7.1
425
14
Alternative 1 Mines
Antelope
Center
Glenharold
North Beulah
Renner
Schoolhouse
Underwood
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
105.6
67.9
75.7
31.6
174.5
83.3
143.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'According to NDSDH, this value has been revised to 25; however, the value shown was used in modeling studies by
both the NDSDH and the present study.
Source: North Dakota State Department of Health, Montana Air Quality Bureau, and BLM.
1-14
TABLES
ESTIMATED S02 REGIONAL BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATIONS
Averaging Time SO2 (ug/m)3*
1 -hour maximum 82
3-hour maximum 27
24-hour maximum 9
Source: BLM, 1982
*micrograms per cubic meter
TABLE 6
PREDICTED MAXIMUM IMPACTS FROM 1975 SOURCES
Incremental pollutant concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter
Allowable PSD
Receptor
Pollutant/ Averaging Time
Increment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sulfur Dioxide:
1-hour maximum
32.54
30.91
29.26
32.78
32.66
30.10
30.95
32.35
3-hour maximum
25
22.84
23.29
23.24
22.13
23.06
23.37
20.81
21.96
24-hour maximum
5
5.34
5.74
6.27
4.52
4.68
4.90
4.13
4.16
Sulfates:
1-hour maximum
5.80
5.31
4.73
6.13
5.92
5.27
6.03
6.16
3-hour maximum
4.08
3.97
3.77
4.19
4.18
4.04
4.15
4.23
24- hour maximum
1.62
1.64
1.67
1.63
1.64
1.64
1.69
1.70
TABLE 7
PREDICTED MAXIMUM IMPACTS FROM 1997 SOURCES
Incremental pollutant concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter
Allowable PSD
Receptor
Pollutant/ Averaging Time
Increment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sulfur Dioxide:
1-hour maximum
27.90
26.37
26.47
21.02
26.93
33.34
20.93
20.19
3-hour maximum
25
27.41
25.79
26.05
20.18
25.61
32.47
18.86
18.49
24-hour maximum
5
13.95
13.98
14.30
12.62
16.18
15.36
10.62
11.05
Sulfates:
1-hour maximum
4.27
4.30
4.30
3.29
3.71
4.08
2.61
2.65
3-hour maximum
4.24
4.26
4.26
3.27
3.67
4.07
2.58
2.64
24-hour maximum
2.45
2.49
2.54
2.13
2.27
2.36
1.84
1.89
1-15
Incremental Pollutant Concentrations at TRNP-S from
Alternative 3 Emission Sources
Maximum incremental concentrations of SO2 and
SO4 resulting from all facilities proposed under Leas-
ing Alternative 3 are shown in Table 8. For SO2, maxi-
mum 1 -hour, 3-hour and 24-hour averages were pre-
dicted to be 15.59 ug/m3, 15.21 ug/m3, and 6.05
ug/m3, respectively. It may be noted that Alternative 3
emission sources totally consume by themselves the
allowable 24-hour PSD Class I increment of 5 ug/m3.
These incremental concentrations would be added to
the sum of the background and incremental 1 975 and
1 997 concentrations to obtain the total ambient pollu-
tant concentrations, as described later under Cumula-
tive Ambient Pollutant Concentrations.
Incremental Pollutant Concentrations at TRNP-S from
Alternative 6 Emission Sources
Table 9 shows the predicted maximum incremental
concentrations of SO2 and SO4 resulting from all facili-
ties proposed under Alternative 6. This alternative is
proposed as the maximum level of coal resource
development. Similar to Alternative 3, which is the pre-
ferred alternative, the MESOPGFF modeling results
show that the allowable 24-hour PSD Class 1 increment
for SO2 will be consumed by the Alternative 6 emission
sources alone, Maximum SO2 1-hour, 3-hour and 24-
hour averages were predicted to be 31 .73 ug/m3, 1 9.59
ug/m3, and 8.58 ug/m3, respectively. These incremen-
tal concentrations would be added to the sum of the
background and incremental 1975 and 1997 concen-
trations to obtain the total ambient pollutant concentra-
tions, as described below.
Cumulative Ambient Pollutant Concentrations
To estimate maximum ambient (total) SO2 concentra-
tions for Alternatives 3 and 6, the assumed background
values are added to the sum of the maximum incre-
mental concentrations predicted for 1975 sources,
1997 sources and sources proposed for each alterna-
tive, as shown in Table 1 0. It should be noted that the
maximum ambient concentrations calculated in this
manner are conservatively high for the cumulative con-
centration estimates, since maximum increments for
each source group occur at different receptors and at
different time periods. However, the procedure is illus-
trative for a conservative analysis of impacts on air
quality-related values. It is also possible that individual
source contributions may be higher. Site specific anal-
yses for SO2 emissions from end-use facilities have not
been reported, but would be included in the PSD pro-
cess. The site-specific analyses are important because
the meteorology that gave the highest cumulative con-
centrations will not necessarily give the highest contri-
bution from individual sources.
Table 1 0 presents the maximum SO2 ambient impacts
at the TRNP-S for Alternatives 3 and 6. For Alternative 3,
the maximum 1-hour, 3-hour, and 24-hour averages
were estimated to be 164 ug/m3, 98 ug/m3, and 38
ug/m3, respectively. For Alternative 6, ambient concen-
trations of 1 80 ug/m3, 1 02 ug/m3, and 40 ug/m3 were
predicted, respectively, for maximum 1-hour, 3-hour,
and 24-hour averages. It can be concluded that cumu-
lative impacts are approximately the same for both
leasing alternatives. However, it may also be noted that
the incremental 24-hour average concentration due to
Alternative 6 (8.58 ug/m3) exceeds that due to Alterna-
tive 3 (6.05 ug/m3) by an amount (2.53 ug/m3) equal to
half of the allowable PSD increment, and from this
perspective, the difference in impacts between the two
alternatives is not insignificant.
Since either Alternative 3 or Alternative 6 sources are
predicted to add SO2 concentrations exceeding the
allowable 24-hour PSD increment in a Class I area
where the allowable increment has already been con-
sumed, it is clear that any proposed projects in the
vicinity of TRNP-S associated with the BLM coal leasing
alternatives would require thorough site-specific
analyses.
EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ON SENSITIVE
SPECIES
Plant species sensitive to sulfur dioxide at TRNP-S and
meteorological concentration levels at which adverse
effects have been noted are shown in Tables 1 1 and 1 2,
reproduced from the recent NPS report (NPS, 1982)
In evaluating potential effects of the SO2 concentra-
tions predicted in the modeling studies by comparing
the predicted concentrations (Table 1 0) with the effects
levels (Tables 1 1 and 1 2), it may be seen that the
concentration levels in the two sets of tables are not
directly compatible because of widely differing averag-
ing times. It must also be borne in mind that the pre-
dicted short-term concentrtations (Table 1 0) represent
maximum worst-case concentrations for short-term
episodes. The annual average ambient (total) SO2
concentrations predicted at TRNP-S in the earlier stud-
ies are 3.9 ug/m3 for the 1 997 (non-BLM project) sour-
ces, 4.3 ug/m3 for Alternative 3, and 4.9 ug/m3 for
Alternative 6. Although it is not possible to interpolate
reliably between predicted annual average concentra-
tions and maximum worst-case short-term concentra-
tions, it would appear that SO2 concentrations for the
intermediate averaging times associated with the
adverse effect would likely be below the adverse effects
levels for both Alternatives 3 and 6, except possibly for
the lichens species Usnea hiita and Usnect sp.
which are reported to be affected by SO2 at a 30-day
average concentration of 2 ug/m3 and 25 ug/m3,
respectively. Again, however, it is clear that potential
effects on sensitive species will require thorough eval-
uation in connection with any proposed, new major
SO2 emission sources in the vicinity of TRNP-S.
CONCLUSIONS
The data found in the section on Cumulative Ambient
1-16
TABLE 8
PREDICTED MAXIMUM IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 3 SOURCES
Incremental pollutant concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter
Allowable PSD
Receptor
Pollutant/ Averaging Time
Increment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sulfur Dioxide:
1-hour maximum
9.43
9.22
10.26
12.98
11.43
9.72
15.46
15.59
3-hour maximum
25
9.24
8.88
9.48
12.43
11.10
9.58
14.97
15.21
24-hour maximum
5
5.21
5.24
5.37
5.50
5.29
5.17
6.05
5.96
Sulfates:
1-hour maximum
1.92
1.71
1.77
2.34
2.07
1.78
2.67
2.60
3-hour maximum
1.89
1.69
1.61
2.26
2.00
1.73
2.57
2.47
24-hour maximum
1.42
1.40
1.40
1.44
1.39
1.35
1.45
1.43
TABLE 9
PREDICTED MAXIMUM IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 6 SOURCES
Incremental pollutant concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter
Allowable PSD
Receptor
Pollutant/Averaging Time
Increment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sulfur Dioxide:
1-hour maximum
16.42
24.26
31.73
20.23
19.95
21.08
18.62
20.00
3-hour maximum
25
15.68
14.95
15.64
1824
18.32
17.79
18.21
19.59
24-hour maximum
5
7.85
7.74
7.41
8.43
8.56
8.58
8.10
8.48
Sulfates:
1-hour maximum
3.97
4.24
4.37
4.52
4.40
4.84
4.95
4.79
3-hour maximum
3.77
3.98
4.15
4.09
4.30
4.55
4.30
4.54
24-hour maximum
1.99
1.95
1.91
2.07
2.04
2.00
2.07
2.09
TABLE 10
MAXIMUM S02 AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS AT TRNP-S
Pollutant concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Cumulative Maximu
im Total
1975
1997
Alt. 3
Alt. 6
Averaging Time
Background
Increment
Increment
Increment
Increment
1997
Alt. 3
Alt. 6
1-hour maximum
82
32.78
33.34
15.59
31.73
148
164
180
(receptor, time)1
(4,11,15)
(6,11,22)
(8,12,01)
(3,11,06)
3-hour maximum
27
23.37
32.47
15.21
19.59
83
98
102
(receptor, time)1
(6,11,16)
(6,11,23)
(8,12,02)
(8,12,02)
24-hour maximum
9
6.27
16.18
6.05
8.58
31
38
40
(receptor, time)1
(3,12,12)
(5,12,07)
(7,12,13)
(6,12,21)
'Location and time of occurrence (receptor number, Julian date, hour at start)
1-17
TABLE 1 1
PLANT SPECIES SENSITIVE TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE IN THEODORE ROOSEVELT
NATIONAL PARK
Species
so2
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Averaging
Time
Western wheatgrass
52
30 days
Ricegrass
173
6 weeks
Sunflower
133
5 weeks
Aspen
37-53
931
4 months
3 hours
Green ash
1330
30 hours
Lichens (Gsnea hirta and
Parmelia chlorachroa)
2
52
30 days
30 days
TABLE 12
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ON POTENTIAL LICHEN EFFECTS
Species
SO2 Cone/Duration
(ug/m3)
Effect
Reference
Physcia stellar is
Xanthoria fallax
Physconia grisea
Cladonia rangiferina
Cladonia rangiferina
Usnea sp.
Pel tiger a canina
6500/4 hours
3900/1 hour
2000/3 hours
550/1 day
160/1 week
66/1 month
22/6 months
1 4/ 1 year
176/36 days
25/30 days
266/9 days
Sig. change in
photosynthesis and
respiration.
Threshold for decrease
in photosynthesis.
Beekely & Hofman, 1982.
Bryologist 84: 379-390.
Tomassini, et al. 1977.
New Phytol. 79:147-155.
51% decrease in
photosynthesis.
Loss of species from
flora in Polish forests.
Over 70% reduction
in nitrogen fixation.
Moser, etal. 1980. Can
J. Bot. 58: 2235-2240.
Grodzinski & Yorks, 1981.
Water, Air & Soil Poll. 16:
33-53.
Hendrikisson & Pearson.
1981. Amer. J. Bot. 68:
680-684.
Source: NPS, 1982
1-18
Pollutant Concentrations and Table 10 of this report
show that cumulative ambient SO2 concentrations at
TRNP-S are projected to greatly exceed the allowable
Class I PSD increment for SO2. Table 1 0 indicates that
24-hour ambient concentrations of up to 31 ug/m3 (22
ug/m3 above background) could occur in 1 997 without
any of the coal leasing development activities proposed
in the E1S. The 24-hour Class I PSD increment for SO2
is 5 ug/m3.
Since the baseline SO2 concentration for PSD pur-
poses is 1 5 ug/m3, and because estimated cumulative
24-hour ambient SO2 concentrations at TRNP-S for
Alternatives 3 and 6 could reach 38 ug/m3 or 40 ug/m3
respectively, the Class I increments are projected to be
exceeded. Development of the coal leases will require a
certification by the Federal Land Manager (FLM) that
no adverse impacts will result from the development.
This certification will be based on a careful analysis of
potential impacts on the air quality-related values
(AQRVs), including visibility, that are found in the park.
This certification process, defined in Section
1 65(d)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act, provides the possible
exception to the general rule that a proposed facility
must not violate the Class I increments.
The certification of no adverse impact includes a site-
specific test which examines on a project-by-project
basis whether a proposed facility will unacceptably
affect the resources of a Class I area if the manager of a
Class I area determines that the proposed facility will
not adversely affect the air quality-related values in the
Class I increment. The DOI procedures for the adverse
impact determination process are discussed in more
detail in the Federal Register (47 FR 30226, Monday,
July 12, 1982).
The adverse impact determination will be particularly
critical for coal development proposed in this EIS
because of the high ambient SO2 concentrations that
are predicted at TRNP-S. In a previous impact determi-
nation in the Federal Register (47 FR 30222, July 12,
1982) based on an emission inventory similar to the
1 997 baseline of this EIS, the National Park Service
found that no unacceptable adverse effects on air qual-
ity related values were expected to occur. However,
estimated SO2 concentrations were approaching thres-
hold levels known to produce effects on certain sensi-
tive species that are found in the park, i.e., two species
of lichens. Since the NPS analysis was based on
ambient SO2 concentratiosn that were significantly
lower than the cumulative ambient concentrations pre-
dicted for Alternatives 3 and 6 herein, it would appear
that additional coal leasing and development at the
level proposed in the EIS could result in unacceptable
impacts at TRNP-S.
SUMMARY
The results of the modeling study predict that sulphur
dioxide pollution in the Theodore Roosevelt National
Park- South will substantially exceed federal standards
for Prevention of Significant Deterioration even if no
federally-owned coal resources are leased by BLM. Any
federal leasing would add to the sulphur dioxide pollu-
tion. The sulphur dioxide concentrations predicted for
alternatives 3 and 6 could cause adverse effects on two
sensitive plant species, both lichens, at Theodore
Roosevelt National Park- South. Therefore, any pro-
posed coal development project which could increase
the sulphur dioxide concentrations at Theodore
Roosevelt National Park- South would require thorough
evaluation of its predicted effects on sensitive species
and certification by the National Park Service that no
adverse impacts would result from the development.
Page S-33, column 1, paragraph 2, change second
sentence to "It also describes an accepted scale for
categorizing levels of human perceptibility for visibility
degradation."
Page S-34, Table 3-6, line 3, change "9.994" to "0.994"
and "9.0 or less" to "0.9 or less." Line 4, underline
29.7%. Line 5 underline 66.1%. Line 6 underline 0.771.
Page S-35, column 1, paragraph 1, lines 7 and 8,
change "Table 3-5" to "Table 3-7."
Page S-36, column 1 , paragraph 2, change the second
and third sentences to "The predominant soil types in
North Dakota are calcareous and would be little
affected, although there are some areas in Mercer,
McHenry, and Divide counties, and in some counties
east of the Ft. Union coal region where sensitive soil
types occur."
Page S-36, column 2, paragraph 5, line 6, change
"Table 3-3" to "Table 3-5."
Page S-44, add the following after the last paragraph:
Short Term Csage and Impacts Versus Long
Term Effects
The short-term impacts of the project on regional air
quality have been described in the air quality section of
the Air Quality Supplement.
Short-term impacts, due to emissions from coal mining
and conversion processes, will disappear as soon as the
mining and conversion processes are completed and
their emissions cease. No long-term impacts would
remain insofar as regional air quality itself is concerned.
Potential long-term impacts couid remain on environ-
mental resources which have been affected by air pollu-
tion during the operational phase of the project.
Radioactive and other trace elements deposited on the
land from coal conversion emissions would remain in
surface soils for a long period, possibly affecting agri-
culture, biotic resources, and water quality. The nature
and extent of the long-term effects of such deposition
are not expected to be significantly harmful but cannot
be defined at this time. Effects associated with acid
precipitation may also persist beyond the duration of
1-19
the project but may be expected to start recovering as
soon as the acid precipitation stops at the end of the
project period.
Irreversible, Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources
The mines and facilities would cause no irreversible
changes in air quality. After the coal resources have
been mined and converted to energy, and the mines
have been returned to their original land use, there
would be no further emissions of pollutants into the
atmosphere. Regional air quality would rapidly return to
its original quality, or to the quality it would have had if
the project had not been undertaken.
There may however, be some irreversible changes in
soil and water quality in the region which could possibly
be caused by the deposition of radioactive and other
trace elements from emissions of the coal conversion
operations. The nature and degree of such irreversible
effects cannot be defined at this time.
End of insert.
Appendix C
Page SA-4, footnote, at the bottom of the page add "a
guideline, not standard."
Page SA-4, column 2, paragraph 3, line 4, add "*" after
average.
Page SA-4, column 2, paragraph 1 1 , line 2, add "a"
after *.
Page SA-4, column 3, paragraph 1 , line 1 , add "a" after
mean.
Page SA-4, column 3, paragraph 1, line 2, change
"34-hr" to "24-hr."
Page SA-4, column 3, paragraph 3, line 1 , change "05"
to "0.5."
Page SA-4, column 3, paragraph 1 1 , line 2, add "a"
after *.
Page SA-4, column 4, paragraph 3, line 6, change
"(0.24 ppm)" to "(0.28 ppm)."
Page SA-4, column 4, paragraph 4, line 1 , change "0.24
mg/100" to "0.25 mg/100."
Page SA-4, column 5, paragraph 1 , line 2, change "200
ug/m3" to " 1 50 ug/m3."
Appendix F
Page SA-8, line 19 of Table (N. Cheyenne Forest
Prods), draw a line under this entry, completing table of
Emission Sources for 1 975 Baseline. Then, before line
20 add new title, "Emission Sources of 1 997 Inventory"
which comprises remainder of entries.
Page SA-8, line 36 in table, change "MP&L Gnits 1 and
2"to"MP&LUnitl."
Pages SA-8 and SA-9, below both tables, add footnote
"Source: North Dakota State Department of Health
(North Dakota sources). Montana Air Quality Bureau
(Montana sources)."
Appendix H
Page SA-1 1, column 2 (Alternative 1), line 7 (McCone
County), change "3053" to "2773."
References
Page R-l, last reference under Bureau of Land Man-
agement, after "1982" add "a."
after last reference under Bureau of Land Man-
agement, add " 1 982b. Air Quality and Climate Techni-
cal Report for the Regional Environmental Impact
Statement, Fort Gnion Region Billings, MT'
Page R-2, last entry, change "Walther . . . 2184" to
"Walther, E.G. et al 1980. Visibility Measured in the
EPA/NPS Regional Network, June 1978 through May
1980. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Office of Research & Development, (JSEPA, Las Vegas.
Page R-2, Gnder North Dakota State Department of
Health add, " 1 979. The Long-term Effects of True Ele-
ments Emitted by Energy Conversion of Lignite Coal.
Bismarck, ND."
Add, National Atmospheric Deposition Program.
1979. Precipitation chemistry— Volumes I-PV. Natural
Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State Univer-
sity, Fort Collins.
add, Schock, M.R., 1982. Private communication
dated October 19, 1982, to K. Eilar, ECOS Manage-
ment Criteria, Inc.
National Park Service, 1982. Technical Review of Six
PSD Permit Applications Potentially Affecting Theo-
dore Roosevelt National Park and Lostwood National
Wildlife Refuge. Denver, Colorado. July; and Supple-
mental Information, August 1982.
Glossary
PageG-l, column 1, "integral vista" should be defined
as follows:
"the view perceived from within the mandatory class I
federal area of a specific landmark or panorama
located outside the boundary of the mandatory class I
area." See 40 CFR Sec. 51 .301 (n)( 1 981 ). . . The criteria
for identification of integral vistas includes, but is not
limited to, a determination of "whether the integral
vistas are important to the visitor's visual experience
associated with a mandatory class I area." Id. Sec.
51.304(a). The regulations indentifying integral vistas
1-20
have not been promulgated. As a "major rule" under state is responsible for making final determinations
Executive Order Mo. 1 2291 , these regulations are cur- regarding the degree of protection, if any, afforded to
rently undergoing a Regulatory Impact Analysis. Once integral vistas in the permitting and land use planning
a Federal Land Manager has identified integral vistas, processes, subject only to the general requirement that
the State is responsible for incorporating the integral the state make "reasonable progress" toward the
vistas into the State's air quality planning process (spe- national visibility goal specified in Section 169A of the
cifically the State Implementation Plan). In addition, the Clean Air Act.
1-21
PART II
Public Comments
INTRODUCTION
This section includes all the public comments received on the Ft. Union Draft E1S and the Air Quality Supplement.
The public comments are printed in the order that they were received by this office. This procedure was used in order
to include those responses that were received after the official closing date. The entire public hearings testimony is
included, both the oral testimony and its written counterpart, as well as any written testimony that was not presented
orally.
The major issues and concerns that were identified by the public comment include effects of air pollution on animals,
vegetation, and water; effects of mines and facilities on surface and groundwater; on-site and off-site effects of mines
and facilities on agriculture; effects of mines and facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat, especially wetlands,
woodlands, and native prairie; effects of mining on the Knife River Flint Quarries; effects of new roads, transmission
lines, pipelines, and railroad spurs on adjacent farms and ranches; and effects to the economic and social conditions
of small cities and towns when large numbers of workers move into them.
The major comments and questions were bracketed and numbered. In order to avoid confusion, the numerical order
was continued from comment to comment, and thus the comments and questions have been numbered from 1
through 368.
LIST OF COMMENTORS AND RESPONSES
Comments from Federal and State agencies, local governments and organizations and individuals are printed in
their entirety, in chronological order as they were received. They are listed below with the page numbers of the
comments and the response numbers which can be found in Part III.
COMMENTOR
PAGE * OF COMMENT
RESPONSE
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Fish & Wildlife Service
Department of the Army
Department of Transportation
Minerals Management Service
National Park Service
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency
Geological Survey
Office of Surface Mining
INDIAN TRIBES
Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Tribes
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation
STATE AGENCIES
State of North Dakota
Allen I. Olson, Governor
Department of Health
Highway Department
Federal Ad Coordination Office
State of Montana
Ted Schwinden, Governor
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Department of Health State Clearinghouse
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
City of Dickinson
City/County Planning Office
Miles City/Custer County
McCone County Commissioners
2-1,2-3, 2-49 through 2-52
205-214
2-2
6-10
2-2
11, 12
2-3
14
2-4,2-5,2-11,2-12,2-68,2-29
15, 16,35,36,295-304
2-49, 2-53
202-204
2-62, 2-76
261-263,3-47,3-48
2-69, 2-70
305-312
2-76
343-346
2-77, 2-78
349-367
2-60, 2-61
252
2-65 through 2-68
284-294
2-62
None
2-6 through 2-9, 2-13
through 2-15
20-28,41-55
2-61 *
253
2-77
None
2-57, 2-58, 2-59
232-248
2-55, 2-64
277-283
2-56, 2-57
231
2-77
None
2-1
2-1
2-60
2,3
4,5
251
ORGANIZATIONS & INDIVIDUALS
Tenneco Coal
Jean A. Roll
Stark County Impact Association
Utah International Inc.
Albert L. Boeckel
Dawson Resource Council
McCone Agriculture Protection Organization
Golden Valley Resource Council
Ms. Bud Stevenson
Charles Yarger
Ms. Sovejg Howard
Meridan Land & Mineral Co.
Irene Moffett
Helen Waller
People for Economic Progress
Wesco Resources
Willie Day
Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture
Northern Plains Resource Council
Edwin H. Ames, Jr.
LeRoy M. Moline, D.D.S.
Glenn Waller
Circle Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture
Flying V Apts. Inc., Elmo P.R. Dreyer
Darrell Garoutte
The Nakota Company
Jean Dekker
Sidney Chamber of Commerce
Dakota Resource Council
Frank E. "Ed" Eaton
2-1
2-2
2-6,2-13
2-9,2-61,2-62
2-16,2-17
2-18,2-19,2-25,2-26,2-31,
2-32, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38
2-20
2-20,2-21,2-32 2-33
2-21
2-22, 2-23 through 2-35
2-24, 2-35, 2-60
2-24, 2-35, 2-36, 2-63
2-25, 2-26, 2-37
2-26 through 2-28, 2-38
through 2-43
2-28, 2-29, 2-43, 2-44
2-29 through 2-31, 245, 246
2-26, 2-37
2-45
2-46, 2-71 through 2-76
2-47
2-47
2-47, 2-48
2-48, 2-49, 2-52
2-53
2-53
2-54, 2-55
2-59
2-62
2-10,2-11,2-16,2-70,2-71
2-64
1
13
17-20,37-40
28-30, 254-260
58
59,70,84,87-92, 124-135,
144, 145, 149, 150
71-75
75-77, 136, 137
77-79
80, 138
81,139-141,249-250
82,83, 142-143,264-272
84-87, 146-147
92-108, 154-168
109, 169
110-123, 170-183
88, 148
None
184-190,321-342
191,192
193-195
196-200
201
None
215-218
219-230
None
None
30-34,56,57,313-320
273-276
TennecoCoal
A Tenneco Company
Mr. David Darby
Project Manager, Fort Unioi
Bureau of Land Management
222 North 32nd Street
P. 0. Box 30157
Billings. Montana 59107
August 13, 1982
Dei
DEIS - Fort Union Coal Region
Mr. Darby:
In looking through the DEIS we just recieved, I noticed that the "surface
owner nonconsent" map for the south Wibaux-Beach tract shows two (2) parcels
of surface owner nonconsent. If I read the map correctly, they are all of
fractional Section 30, T-13-N, R-6I-E, Wibaux County, Montana and lot 1 of
fractional Section 22, T-139-N, R-106-W. Golden Valley County, North Dakota.
On September 3, 1980, we forwarded copie
:h numerous others) to Mr. Edgar 0. Stark
re been inadvertantly misplaced, please le
rfai
md 1 look forward to
?,>sv ,W,
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IJ
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Federal Building, Room 3035
316 North 26th Street
Billings, Montana 59101
August 17, 1982
a
Mr. Dave Darby, Project I
Fort Union Project
Bureau of Land Management
222 North 32nd Street
P.O. Box 30157
Billings. MT 59107
Dear Mr. Darby:
We have reviewed informal
in the Draft Fort Unic
Our informal comments
i this draft. We have
Regional Director. USFW!
USFWS, 0EC, Washington D.C.
ation on the Montana tracts which is contained
Regional Coal Environmental Impact Statement.
the Preliminary Draft have been incorporated
city of dckinson
August 18, 1982
Mr. David Darby, Project ti
Fort Union Project
Bureau of Land Management
222 North 32nd Street
P. O. Bo* 30157
Billings, MT 59107
Fo
ft EIS repeatedly
al E I S
lat the Alternative 2 and the preferri
iual Impact upon Dickinson. Except:
page 131 under the heading "Alternative 3," second sentence ..."
An assumption that 60S of the work force for Dunn Center and Werner
would originate In Dickinson ..." The estimated employment for
those mines and facilities are given on pages 52 and 53.
Although this City has had experience with impact and has a large
population base with which to react: an estimated 1,000 workers trans-
lates into many more people. Considering the families of these worker;
and the additional supportive services that follow a rapid population
growth, the EIS does not give a true picture of the impact thst
Dickinson may expect by Alternative 2 or Alternative 3.
rh«
Bit I
! EIS i
The other misinformation Is from I
ance there Is available to lmpactei
This page does not point out that
specifically limits the eligibilii
units of government within flfteei
active mining operation. Thereto:
Alt.
*■>■"-
al l
! Of I
nlties as given on page A-28.
orch Dakota statute (NDCC: 57-62-02)
for the grant/loan programs to those
miles of the tipple of a currently
, Dickinson could not receive
! development of
The draft report
Respectfully,
ler, Pretid
/LfZ^S
nismS^
CITY / COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE
MILES CITY / CUSTER COUNTY
516 MAIN
MILES CITY / MONTANA 59301
(406) 232-6339
B.rb.r« Kenn.dy . Pluming Dir«toi
■ AuiaMl Planntt
Dave Darby , Project Manager
Fort Union Project
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, Montana 59107
Having reviewed the Fott Unit
EIS, I have only a few
my gr.
t,„|f.
'aul Martin for an excellent job as writer/edi
In the summary for Alternative 5, you state that Redwater II would result
"completely destroying a portion of the Redwater River Valley". About
Alternative 6, you state Redwater I would "further impact the Fiedwater Ri1
Valley". Each of the 2 tracts, as described in SSA's, gives me a better
perspective thar the summai
SSA';
■ Redw,
(X is defined <
is a drainage for rain ;
r, more like a creek. 1
ally bad stuff in it.
The SSA text leads me
melt of some 19,000 act.
is stated in the SSA,
;t the "end use* of the coal. I didi
luded "end use (facilities)" in the
ep in the coal leasing process. I ;
upposed to concern itself with end t
: do I
i tide
agree that the project should have t
SSA phase. 1 still don't. The EIS
no authority cited for the EIS to t.
coal leasing and development. BLM i
state responsibility.
I always read about alternatives for tract groupings. If there is concern to
your readers about impacts to social organization and well being in the listed
communities, one alternative is to view Miles City as the place for the "first
wave" new workers. Miles City is central among forthcoming coal field developtneni
The City can provide for new workers, becoming a "labor pool" city as Cheyenne
and Billings. The City has fewer mitigation measures to take than any listed
community. Most small towns are nice. Miles City is big and nice.
: do i
6tJU**j>
that the project team did ,
2-1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
15 September 1982
Mr. David Darby, Project 1
Fort Union Project
Bureau of Land Management
222 North 32nd Street
Post Office Box 30157
Billings, Montana 59107
Dear Mr. Darby;
M
? i 1 u
the Fort Uni
Fodt: i
Affecting i.oal Development
The document makes no n
or Section 10 of the Ri
(33 U.S.C. 1344) regula
waterways
ion of Section 404 of the clean Water Act
and Harbor Act of 1899 and the Corps of
ereof. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
the discharge of dredged or fill material
lakes, and wetlands. Such activities must
be authorized under the Nationwide perm:
Department of the Army permit. Section
of 3 March 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) prohibii
of alteration of any navigable water of
construction of any structure in or ovei
ed Sta
t or permitted by an individual
10 of the River and Harbor Act
s the unauthorized obstruction
the united States. The
any navigable water of the
nditi
accompl l
ing of material in such
rk affecting the course.
, or capacity of such waters is unlawful unless the
work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by
the Secretary of the Army.
In the discussion of the alternatives, several statements are made
g water intake structures, transmission lines (either water
Le. as with
ise basis. Filling
il flow of less than
idered under the Nation-
ing i
m of wetlands. It is
ire. that filling acti
in a waterway or wetland. Individual
required for filling activities associ
tions will be evaluated on a case-by-c
es on waterways having an average annu
feet per second will gen
1 1 1 id
Individual permits will be required for filling
aterways where the average annual flow is greater than
IS September 1982
8
I
:,[-,_
The withdrawal of water from a Corps project would require the described
Section 404 and 10 permits and also an easement for access across Corps
lands. Water withdrawal and conveyance facilities designed to carry
pal water as identified on page 106 would further require a water
e contract from the Corps.
Coal Slu
ry Faciliti
pages
10
The document makes no mention of coal slurry facili
through 47. The FEIS should provide rationale for i
slurry facilities or give thorough treatment of coal slurry operation
Potential beneficial impacts particular to coal slurry operations
could include energy delivery to remote users without large transmiss
losses and without large aerial power lines,- reduced local social,
economic, and environmental impacts: and incidental delivery of water
for municipal or other domestic uses. Potential adverse impacts
particular to coal slurry operations would include spills and the
need for much greater volumes of water, which may conflict with other
water uses.
Lake are below optimum visitor
ines of these two projects afford
ities for increased visitation. A
rangers would be required. However
the major impact would be for cost-sharing funds from both federal
and local agencies to provide new recreation facilities. While some
wildlife would be displaced by the development and use of recreation
facilities, the major land management proble
from off-road vehicular use of project lands.
Both
Lake
Sakakawe
ind
Fort
Peck
Utll
zati
The
horel
ample opportu
nity
to
vide
facil
marg
nal
Lner
ease
in
■'•'■
sonal
park
uld probably occ
" W^KDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
s VO^ /v'x\ KtWftAl HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
September 17. 1982
11
12
U.S. Department of the Interior HEI
Bureau of Land Management
Project Manager, Fort Union Coal Project
Mr. David Darby
222 North 32nd Street
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, MT 59107
Dear Mr. Darby:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Fort Union Coal Region. Our Washington Office has
requested us to provide the review of this document since we are closely
involved with the geographic area.
On page 94. the document states that 2000 AAOT (Average Annual Oaily
Traffic) is the capacity for a two-lane rural road. Under ideal condition1
this is a true statement; however, many of the roads in rural Montana and
North Dakota are constructed to less than ideal conditions- Additionally,
average operating speeds are reduced when conditions approach one-half
of capacity (i.e., 1000 AADT-ideal conditions). Since many of the section;
of road listed in the DEIS's alternatives apprcach and exceed full capacit;
and almost all sections are projected to exceeJ cue-half capacity, this
_ indicates more study should be performed.
We would suggest that this document be reviewed by both the Montana
Highway Department and the North Dakota Highway Department for their
analyses of the traffic situation and general cormients.
-TS^^M— -
»* Fred Hemper
721 South 6 Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-587-1767
September 23, 1982
/
13
**■>.'■
,*, I,
Davrd Darby, Project Manager
Fort Union Project
Bureau of Land Management
222 north 32 Street
r.O. Box 30157
Billings, MT 59107
Dear Mr. Darby:
This comment is prompted by the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Fort Union Coal Region, U.S. Department ot
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, July 1982.
This suggestion is dwarfed by the many major considerations
addressed in the impact statement, but it could be of importa
to some individuals. Proposed out-of-pit haul roads located
outside tract boundaries do not appear to follow section or
property lines. It would be better if they did, rather than
bisecting land farmed as a unit.
Sincerely,
.*,■-'/ ' ■
Jean A. Roll
2-2
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT t***~^ '
Memorandum •*""""'"
September 28, 1982
Field Supervisor, Ecological Sen
USFwS, 8il lings, HT
We have reviewed the subject document and believe the potential impacts
from the proposed actions on fish and wildlife habitats within Htontana
are adequately described.
^u#,Vk
cc:R0(RD), FWS, Denver. CO
Director, I1DFWP, Helena, HT
FWS, OEC. Washington, DC
ES Supervisor. Bismarck, NO
Buy V S Swg$ BenJt Rt^lariy on ih, Pjyrcll Savings Plan
United States Department of the Interior
■11 $£P~l*d2
David Darby, Project Manag.
Fort Union Project
Uureau of Land Management
Billings, Montana
Acting Associate D
Review of Draft En
ctor. Onshore Minerals Operations
onmental Impact Statement, Fort Union Coal
14[
The Minerals Mdnagement Service has reviewed the subject draft environmental
impact statement (ULISJ both at headquarters and in the field, we find that
the report adequately presents the coal resources of the area and the environ-
nental consequences for each of the alternatives presented.
lowever, we feel that appendix A, entitled "Federal Laws Affecting Coal
Development and Energy Conversion," should address the Mineral Leasing Act, the
"ederal Coal Leasing Act Amendments, the Federal Land Policy and Managemeni Act.
nd the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, among others.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEIS.
UiUJ*' A
Andrew V. Bail
QcdL
ey /
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
In the Matter of:
PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE
FORT UNION ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT.
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, September 28, 1982
7:30 p.m.
Civic Center
Beulah, North Dakota
APPEARANCES;
AUGUST KELLER, Hearing Offi
INDEX
Speakers :
John Christiano
Jerry Perdaems
Martin Schock
Walter Ruzzo
Randolph Nodland
2-3
PROCEEDINGS
MR. KELLER: I chink we can get started, folks. I
think we will get started.
I would like to just say good evening to all of you.
My name is August Keller. I am Governor Olson's representative
on the Fort Union Regional Coal Team.
The coal team has been busy with reviewing the pro-
posed leasing targets and this evening's meeting or this
evening's hearing is one step in a very long process outlined
by Che Department of Che Interior to ultimately lease coal in
the Fort Union Region.
I guess it's important to point out that the hearing
this evening is a hearing to Cake testimony on the Fort Union
Coal Team's Environmental Impact SCatement which has been
developed and Che six leasing alternatives that have been
identified by the Fort Union Coal Team for the Fort Union.
There is a couple of housekeeping announcements that
I would like to make with respect to how things are to be
handled this evening. First of all, this is a formal hearing
to take testimony from any interested party, both written and
1 testimony, on the issue. The primary issue is the Environ
mental Impact Statement which has been developed and che leas-
ing alCematives which have been ouClined in the Draft Environ-
tal Impact Statement.
We asked as you came in that you fill out a card
'
indicacing as Co--indicating whether or not you will be offer-
-
ing oral testimony or offering written testimony. We will be
:1
using those cards and I would like to have them put into the
4
order in which they were filled out so that we will allow the
testimony to be offered in thaC sequence.
11
We have also indicaCed chat we wanted a limitation
-
on the oral testimony of a ten-minute duration. If you are — if
Ill
you have a prepared statement and it requires much more than
ten minutes to read we would like to — as long as you have a
prepared statement and as long as you are going to file the
11
13
14
15
prepared statement we would like to have you highlight that
prepared statement in your oral comments rather than--than
present the entire paper orally.
The meeting is designed to take testimony. It is not
a debate forum. We will simply take your oral and written
in
17
•ji
testimony.
The testimony will be recorded in the Federal
Register and your word or your ideas will be presented to the
proper authorities through that vehicle, but the--the--the
meeting this evening is not designed to debate the issues as
such.
Okay. One other point I guess I need to make before
I turn the rostrum over is the fact that there will be another
hearing that the Fort Union or the BLM is sponsoring on Chis
same topic. It will be held tomorrow evening in Clendive.
5
Okay. The first person that we have to offer testi-
a
mony tonight is Mr. John P. Christiano with the National Park
:I
Service.
*
MR. CHRISTIANO: I am John Christiano, Chief of
Permit Review and Technical Support Branch, Air Quality Divisio
'•
National Park Service.
i
I originally scheduled this visit to Beulah in order
s
to appear at the State of North Dakota permit hearing on Basin
■'
Electric's proposed Antelope Valley Station Unit No. 1 at the
hi
high school here tomorrow night. At that permit hearing I will
n
12
i:i
present the September 15, 1982 determination by the federal
land manager to Basin Electric's proposed new facility as well
as five other proposed new facilities whose permits are cur-
14
IS
10
1(1
Jl
rently the subject of state hearings, will not adversely affect
Theodore Roosevelt National Park or the wilderness portion of
Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, both Class I areas under the
Clean Air Act.
In the Department of the Interior, the assistant
secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Mr. G. Ray Arnett
(sic), exercises the Secretary's authority as federal land
manager for National Park Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife
service areas. I directed the National Park Service's techni-
cal review on which the assistant secretary's determination of
no adverse impact was based. I would like to present the
assistant secretary's determination with its supporting docu-
15
mentation for the record tonight.
MR. KELLER: Thank you.
MR. CHRISTIANO: When the Bureau of land Management
released the air quality supplement to Its Draft EIS on coal
leasing and development In the Fort Union Basin, questions we
raised as to whether or not Bl-M's analysis was consistent wit
the assistant secretary's determination of no adverse impact.
When we learned that BLM had scheduled a hearing on
the Fort Union Coal Draft EIS in Beulah on the night before the
state's permit hearing for Basin Electric, I was asked to c<
to Beulah a day early in order to attend tonight's hearing.
My remarks tonight have a limited purpose: To
address the relationship between the air quality discussion and
BLM's Draft EIS and the National Park Service's air quality
analysis in the determination of no adverse impact on Theodore
Roosevelt National Park and the wilderness portions of the
Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge.
I will explain in my testimony tonight BLM's air
quality discussion In the Draft EIS Is not inconsistent with
the National Park Service's determination of no adverse impact
from the proposed facilities now seeking state permits.
The apparent difference in the agency's conclusions
merely reflects the differences in the purpose, scope and sub-
ject matter of the two studies.
At the outset then it is important to understand that
2-4
7
BLM and NPS analyses were not designed for the same purpose.
Very simply stated, the BLM document is a planning document
»
intended to be used for leasing decisions whereas the NPS
4
analysis is source-specific and is used for permitLing
decisions.
■•
More specifically, the National Park Service per-
formed a source-specific determination under the Clean Air Act
«
aid the NPS Organic Act based on modeling of emissions from the
"
existing major sources and predicted emissions from the six
,„
proposed facilities currently under state permit review.
»
The NPS examined the six proposed facilities and
15
a
found no adverse impact on the Class I areas.
u
The Bureau of Land Management, on the other hand,
,4
performed a broad environmental review under NEPA on the poten-
IS
tial impacts on air quality of regional coal leasing and
11.
related development based on modeling of emissions from pre-
IT
IK
1*1
dicted — from existing facilities plus predicted emissions from
currently-proposed facilities plus potential emissions from
foreseeable future facilities.
The Bureau of Land Management analyzed these facili-
ties and found the potential for air quality impacts on the
park. Given the different purposes, scope and subject matter
of the two studies, their conclusions are not inconsistent.
The National Park Service is confident that the six n<
facilities that are currently seeking permits to construct from
the state will not have an adverse impact on the park or the
refuge wilderness. These facilities are Basin Electric Power
Cooperative's proposed 500 megawatt unit expansion to the
Antelope Valley Electric Generating Station, Warren Petroleum'
proposed expansion of a natural gas processing facility, Nokot;
Company's proposed coal-to-methanol plant, Minnesota Power and
Light's proposed 500 megawatt electric generating station,
Amoco Production Company's proposed natural gas processing
facility and Phillips Petroleum Company's proposed natural gas
processing facility.
As to any future facilities, however, such as those
other facilities included in BLM's Draft Air Quality Analysis,
National Park Service cannot say at this time whether these
future facilities will have an adverse impact on the park with-
out comprehensive study and review of the particular proposed
sources and their predicted emissions.
The Clean Air Act provides the opportunity for this
study and review in the new source review permitting process.
Section 165(D) of the act protects the air quality-related
values including visibility in Class I air quality areas like
Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Under this section before
any major emitting facility may obtain a permit to begin con-
struction the National Park Service must examine the impacts on
the park. If the assistant secretary determines that a future
Llity will have an adverse impact on the park that facility
9
.
would not be granted a certification of no adverse impact.
-
No major facility that has applied for a permit to
»
date has the potential to impact the park adversely and no
'
major facility that could potentially impact the park adversely
will be able to obtain a permit in the future without a vari-
•
ance from the governor or the president.
16
ID
1 ■
IB
As a second and final point tonight, I would like to
say a word about what constitutes an, quote, "adverse impact"
under the Clean Air Act. BLM's Draft EIS notes that coal
leasing development may trigger potentially significant adverse
visual impacts. Whether and to what degree visibility will be
impaired by a proposed source is an essential part of the
National Park Service's review under Section 165(D).
In accordance with the definition of adverse impact
established by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
National Park Service, this review includes not only intensity
of the predicted visibility impairment, which BLM has done, but
also the duration, frequency and time of the impairment.
If BLM applied the established definition of adverse,
its discussions on potential impacts would have been better
focused.
Environmental Protection Agency defines an adverse
impact on visibility as visibility impairment which interferes
with the management, protection, preservation or enjoyment of
the visitor's visual experience of the park.
RAUCN 5h00than0 WPORT.NG
10
1
The regulations clearly make a distinction between
visibility impairment which is defined as any humanly percept-
•'
ible change, which both BLM and the Park Service find can occur
'
from increased emissions, and adverse impact which is defined
as visibility impairment which occurs to such an extent or with
«
such intensity, duration or frequency as to interfere with the
preservation of the area or with the visitor's visual enjoyment
-
of the area.
»
The National Park Service adds that any impact on the
16
.0
park outside of visibility or predicted visibility is adverse
11
if it diminishes the park's national significance, impairs the
12
structure and functioning of its ecosystems or impairs the
13
quality of the visitor experience. Thus, an impact on visi-
•
bility is not necessarily significant or adverse just because
i'i
it is perceptible by an observer.
ii.
We suggest that BLM include these factors in their
'■
air quality analysis for the Final EIS. The determination of
"■
whether any visibility impairment from future proposed sources
"
will be adverse is, of course, one made by the assistant
20
secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks in Section 165 in the
'
new source review process.
22
The National Park Service is now reviewing BLM's
■■:,
Draft EIS and the supplemental air quality report and will
»
submit more-detailed comments before the end of the extended
comment period.
R*UCH SHORTHAND REPORTS
2-5
17
ii
MR. KELLER: Thank you. A couple of other announce-
ments in between. One is that we do have a court recorder tha
is taking your testimony down, and I think that one other thing
If there are questions that are raised we do have the BLM staff
here and I guess I just want to make the point that I am not
the resident expert on all of BLM coal leasing program, but w
do have an extensive BLM staff here that will be of assistanc
if we--if we do have a problem.
The
xt card or the
ed Jerry Perdaei
t person asking to offer
Stark County Impact
ftss
Jerry Perdaems. I farm and
ing on behalf
MR. PERDAEMS: My n
ranch in Western Stark County and speak th
of the Stark County Impact Association.
The Stark County Impact Association is an organiza-
tion that's dedicated to the wise use of our mineral resource
and the preservation of our agricultural economy and lifestyl
We have examined the Fort Union Draft EIS and will
concentrate our comments on the Zenith Coal Tract in Western
Stark County. In our opinion, the Zenith Tract should be
omitted from consideration for leasing in 1983, '85 or at any
future date.
We feel that the EIS strongly supports some of our
concerns about the negative impacts that will occur if the
Zenith Tract is developed. Because of the impacts, the Fort
17
18
12
Union Coal Team ranked the Zenith Tract last out of seventeen
tracts ranked in the EIS. Despite this low ranking, the Zenith
Tract is included in three out of the six alternatives, giving
it, we feel, a significant chance of being leased, and we have
not forgotten that the Interior Department has doubled the
amount of coal that the Regional Coal Team suggested be
offered in the Fort Union Region.
One of our concerns is that--the impact of mining on
ground and surface waters in that area. The Zenith Tract is
situated so that it could greatly affect the water supply of
Dickinson. On Page 106 of the Draft EIS states that if the
Zenith Tract is mined the water in Lake Patterson will drop
below water quality standards and that the quantity of water ii
the lake may also be affected.
In addition , shal low ground -water sources up to two
miles around the perimeter of the mine site may be destroyed
amounting to approximately sixty square miles outside of the
tract itself. This could quite possibly destroy the public
well systems of both Belfield and South Heart as well as some
of the privately-owned wells in the area.
Although coal companies are required by law to
replace wells destroyed by strip mining, those people outside
Of the mining area who have lost their wells have had some
trouble proving in court that the well loss was due to strip
mining. Even if the well is replaced, the new well will
13
probably reach down to the Fox Hills Formation at significant
18
cost, approximately $20,000, but this being a one-time obliga-
J. \J
tion with no regard to the costs of maintaining these wells or
_'
drilling new ones as they are needed.
19
1G
Another area that we feel is of concern is the air
quality. Dickinson, South Heart and Belfield will all be
affected by dust from surface mining and pollutants from coal
conversion plants. South Heart and Dickinson are directly
downwind of the mine site with South Heart only a mile from the
eastern boundary. The western line edge of the tract won hi
border the City of Belfield.
The EIS indicates that the national standard for sus-
pended particulates will be violated for all the leasing
alternatives. In addition, the amount of sulfur dioxide and
ozone pollution will increase. Research has shown conclusively
that these pollutants are dangerous to human health as well as
agricultural production. In fact, studies indicate that sub-
IX
stantial crop losses are already occurring in North Dakota from
_"
air pollution.
-'"
The Stark County Impact Association also has some
social and economic concerns in the event of a large energy
20
project on the Zenith Tract. Small towns in the area will have
»
massive influxes of workers and their families, putting a tre-
M
mendous strain on the social fabric and financial resources of
the communities. Experience with coal development in Mercer
MUCH 5HORTH.N0 OEOORT.NG
20
County has taught us that the impact money has been too litt
and too late to adequately cope with these problems. Local
property owners usually end up bearing a large share of the
fiscal impacts.
Agriculture has been the mainstay of our economy
since this land was homesteaded. We have some fine, product
farm land in Western North Dakota, including thai in and around
Hopefully our great grandchildren ■
the Zenith Tract
make the same statement.
Thank you.
MR. KELLER: Thank you.
The next person to testify is Martin Schock of the
North Dakota State Department of Health.
MR. SCHOCK: Thank you.
I would like to take a brief moment to preface my
prepared remarks by noting that the North Dakota State
Department of Health has for a great many of years enjoyed
what it regards to be a very fine working relationship with th<
Bureau of Land Management staff in Dickinson and Billings
principally. The Department of Health regards that relation-
ship to have been productive in many areas enhancing the
department's programs and certainly hopes that it has been of
2fit to the Bureau of Land Management as well.
What I would like to do is read to you portions of a
:er which has been given here for the hearing consideration
2-6
21
15,
that has been prepared by the staff of the Department of Health
"The North Dakota State Department of Health has
reviewed the July, 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and the September" of "1982 Air Quality Information Supplements
document. We have a number of comments following this review
which are herewith presented at" this hearing.
The first I would like to read is as follows: "We
understand the rationale of end-use considerations of coal
leasing actions in preparation of environmental impact state-
ments such as this. The leasing of coal is no guarantee that a
mine-mouth facility will be allowed to use the coal. A site-
specific review of a proposed project such as a power plant,
gasification plant or a liqulf ication plant would have to be
performed and evaluated by the respective permitting agencies
in North Dakota and Montana as well as" the — "as well as be
acceptable to the federal land manager in prevention of signifi
cant deterioration Class I areas and the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This end-use analysis would take place be-
fore any of the new facilities, as outlined in this Draft,
would be considered for a permit to construct or operate. This
is discussed briefly in the draft document. However, it should
be reiterated perhaps in the supplemental air quality summary.
Based upon present regulatory requirements, there is a limit as
to how much energy development will be allowed or where it will
be al lowed."
II
22
; i
; .
■ ■
i ■
ii.
i ■
The second comment I chose to read from our prepared
response is as follows: "The modeling study plan"--I quote
from the supplement on Page S-ll. "The modeling study plan was
cooperatively developed by the BUM, its contractor, the sub-
contractors, the North Dakota State Department of Health, the
Montana Air Quality Bureau and the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VIII."
The Department's comment follows: "The Department
recognizes that it did cooperate with" the "Bureau of Land
Management during 1981 with preliminary modeling of air quality
using steady-state short-range models. However, this statement
indicates that the North Dakota State Department of Health
approved the study's work plan of using the mesoscale model for
determining the air quality impacts of the project facilities.
To the contrary, the Department was never involved with
developing of such a plan. Department staff were involved in
two meetings: The first introduced the contractor to
Department staff" in "April" of "1982 and the second provided
the preliminary draft analysis for staff review" in "June" of
'1982. The Department was not offered any opportunity to com-
ment on the BLM bid solicitation documents before contractors
were selected on proposed air quality modeling methodologies or
on the final draft before it was published," as we review it
_•'
tonight.
23
"■'
The next selected comment is as follows: "It is
SAUCH 5MOHTHANO REPORTING
17
.
unclear in this Draft as to what sources were included in the
regional modeling analysis. On Page 6 of the Draft released
»
in July, it was stated that up to 13" in "Alternate 6 new
•
facilities would be analyzed in addition to the existing back-
ground. Only two of the six pending permit applications, Basin
'■
Electric and the Nokota Company, are included in the new
23
facilities being analyzed by the Environmental Impact Statement
•
However, in Appendix F," which Is titled "'Emissions Sources
-
for 1975 Baseline,' the Basin Electric Unit 3 and Nokota
,.,
facilities are included. Were the emissions from these
ii
facilities counted twice? It would appear from review of
Appendix E," which is "pollutant emissions of the respective
13
alternatives, that this is not the case. However, this needs
»
clarification."
IG
17
\H
1 '
Next point. The supplement on Page S-14 is quoted as
follows: "MESOPUFF was adapted by the North Dakota State
Department of Health for regional assessments in North Dakota
and was approved in a recent North Dakota State Department of
Health guideline for long-range air quality analysis," and a
24
Our response is "The Bureau of Land Management impact
assessment is not subject to many of those constraints involved
in the choice of models and their application in a PSD new
source review under state and EPA regulations. However, It
remains desirable to use models recognized by air quality
»AUC, SHOPTH^O «PORT,N6
18
.
regulatory agencies as models acceptable and appropriate for
air quality impact assessments.
»
"BLM and the contractor were notified that the use
24
*
of mesoscale air quality model for air quality impact assess-
ments must be approved by EPA each time it Is used for a PSD
-
Impact assessment. Although the" Department "has selected this
model for mesoscale transport distances, this application
_*
requires EPA approval in each PSD new source review."
■"
Next quote is from Page S-15. "It is generally
accepted that impact predictions by these models are accurate
to within a factor of two."
1 would interject a comment. This is in reference to
both the mesoscale model and the annual c limatological model
14
CDMQC that was used.
25
.5
"A consensus of modeling experts regarding the per-
»
formance accuracy of mesoscale models does not exist. The
»
Department modified the MESOPUFF model in such a way that it
w
better approximates the atmospheric dispersion of the short-
11
range models adopted by EPA. Some recent studies suggest that"
20
under "the predictions of these — that the predictions of these
!l
short-range models, under some conditions, are better than a
factor of two."
~<
Our next comment refers to the discussion of worst
26
.4
case in the supplement. We have In our written testimony five
35
quotes, four, correction, four paragraphs that we have quoted
RAVCH SMOKTHANO REPOKT.NG
2-7
19
from the supplement. I will read some of them.
"Earlier modeling studies conducted by the North
Dakota State Department of Health indicated that meteorological
'
conditions on July 3rd through the 6th, 1964, result in con-
sumption of the twenty-four-hour maximum increment for sulfur
«
dioxide" in the "Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Unit,
by existing PSD," was inserted, "sources and those for which
-
PSD permit applications are pending." Taken from Page S-14.
„
The report goes on to note on the same page and is
ii>
quoted as follows: "It is noted that other meteorological
26
ii
1 1
episodes not considered in this study could lead to consumption
by existing and pending PSD sources of PSD Class I increments
for sulfur dioxide at other Class I areas in the Fort Union
14
Coal Region. As an example, the North Dakota State Department
of Health found that 1977 baseline sources can result in the
consumption of the twenty-four-hour average S0? increment at
the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, South Unit, during the
January 10th through 12th, 196*, episode."
Finally, another quote, in order to maintain the con-
text of our response, taken from Page S-16: "Therefore, while
the modeling studies represent worst-case impacts for Theodore
Roosevelt National Park," the "North" is inserted, "and may
represent worst-case impacts for other areas in the region,
such as Indian reservations and wildlife refuges, the latter
assumption is less than certain."
„U=„SH,„H.»0»,PO.™0
20
.
Our response concerns the following: "The Department
contends that the worst-case scenarios were not evaluated, with
<
good likelihood, for the all Class I areas except Theodore
<
Roosevelt National Park, North, and that it appears less than
certain that the July 3rd through 6th case is, in fact, worst
»
case for this area," for these reasons: "First. As noted
above, the report correctly indicates that the Department found
,
that worst-case scenarios differed for each of the north and
»
south units of the park. This occurs through the geographical
:"
relationship of the sources under consideration with the Class
26
"Second. Given the sources used by the Department,
which were the existing permitted PSD sources and the proposed
Hi
PSD sources," which are "not the 1975 baseline sources" of the
report, "the Department found that worst-case impacts occurred
under unique meteorological episodes for each of the Class I
areas evaluated.
"Each of the proposed project alternatives, 2 through
6, consist of different source scenarios, therefore, having
different geographical dispersement of source locations.
"Fourth. The report does not provide adequate evi-
dence as justification in support of a conclusion that the
worst-case meteorological scenario would likely continue to be
the July 3rd through 5th case for each of the alternatives 2
through 6."
RAUCH S»0«tHA«D «^ORT,N6
21
27
1 1
VI
is
14
ir,
ii.
1 1
1H
Next point. The Draft on Page S-16 reads as follows:
"Regional air quality was modeled with emissions representing
each of the two non-project baselines, 1975 and 1997 sources.
The resulting pollutant concentrations for each alternative
were added to those for the baselines at each point in the
modeling grid covering the geographical area. The estimated
background concentration for each pollutant and averaging
period was then added uniformly to these concentration fields
for evaluation relative to the ambient air quality standards.
Page S-16."
Our concern follows: "The estimated ambient pollutan
background concentrations are provided in Table 3-2 on Page
S-15. The estimates were based on years generally after 1975,"
quoted on "Page S-15. Therefore, it appears that the pre-
existing or background concentrations would," in fact, "repre-
sent the actual 1975 baseline source contribution to ambient
air quality.
"Thus, it seems appropriate to conclude that, given
the procedure quoted above substantiated by Tables 1-3 and 3-4,
the 1975 baseline emission sources impact upon air quality is
included twice. Further, it seems reasonable to conclude that
the maximum total shown in both tables would be an over-
estimate of the projected air quality, again given the quote
above and the presence of both background and 1975 baseline
source concentrations in these tables."
•"""""
28
22
And, finally, what we perhaps regard to be one of the
most significant, and here in support of our response we quot
five paragraphs from the supplement. I will for the benefit of
brevity just read our first one, which is taken from Page S-5,
and it's quoted as follows: "In most of the Fort Union Region
the annual precipitation pH has been at least until very
recently in the range of 6 to 6.5 or less acidic than expected
for precipitation with atmospheric carbon dioxide. However,
current data being obtained in North Dakota indicate that pre-
cipitation is more acidic than could be caused by carbon
dioxide. "
Our response is lengthy. I will read it all. It
follows, "In 1980, a Department staffer devoted seven months
of researching literature which described the precipitation,
collection, sample handling and storage, laboratory preparation
of samples and instrument analysis of samples. This extensive
review of procedures produced the basic protocol now used by
the Department in the precipitation chemistry project.
"At the conclusion of that effort, a review of the
procedures used during 1977 season was conducted. It was
determined that the integrity of several aspects of these 1977
procedures was unacceptable and that the pH data of precipita-
tion provided during the 1977 season was not valid. It is
important to note that this conclusion was prepared before the
1981 season.
2-8
23
.
"Tt is further noteworthy that since that time in
1980 the Department has not reproduced or referenced the 1977
data in any of its reports.
"Because the 1977 data of the Department has been
determined to be inaccurate, that data cannot be compared to
«
1981 data for the purpose of inferring, implying or otherwise
concluding that a trend is occurring in North Dakota. Thus,
the implications of an increasing precipitation acidity are not
■'
valid. The second annual report of the Department for its
in
present precipitation chemistry project notes that the project
28
n
if.
IC
17
has not collected samples for a sufficient period of time to
begin to examine the possibility of a trend.
"Recently, many investigators have begun to challenge
the previous contention that precipitation in equilibrium with
standard atmospheric gases should have a pH of 5.65. These
investigators have been suggesting that precipitation in an
uncontaminated atmosphere may," in fact, "have a pH value near
5.
"Certainly, sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions were
24
occurring during the 1981 season. However, the chemical analy-
sis of those 1981 samples does not provide any ability to dif-
ferentiate the influence of those emissions on the rainfall pH"
measured that summer. "The chemical analysis provided a basis
to suggest by theoretical considerations that increased atmos-
pheric loading of these contaminants should result in a
RAUCH SHORTHAND REPOffnNG
28
24
decreased rainfall pH. However, the study could not, and did
not, attempt to relate the required amount of increased loading
to produce a discemable change in rainfall pH."
Concluding then, "Since the Department of Health
received the Air Quality Information Supplemental document on
September 21, 1982, and the Air Quality and Climate Technical
Report document on September 24th the Department reserves the
right to submit additional comments" before "October 19th."
Thank you.
MR. KELLER: Thank you.
I guess I would like to just make one additional
comment. Mr. Schock's comments, oral comments, were abbrevi-
ated or abbreviated his written report, so it is important to
note that the oral comments did not completely cover the
written comments that are being submitted, which is exactly
what I asked people to do at the beginning of the hearing, but
I want everyone here to know and allow the record to show that
the written comments have been submitted.
The next person to offer testimony is Walter Ruazo o
Utah International, Incorporated.
MR. RUZZO: My name is Walter Ruzzo. I am an engi-
neer in the Environmental Department of Utah International,
Incorporated, a diversified mining company with coal mines in
the Western United States.
We have a substantial interest in the Garrison Tract
29
25
ally
sted
the leasing of
in North Dakota and t
coal in the Fort Union Region.
We would like to make three points regarding the
Bureau of Land Management's Environmental Impact Statement on
federal coal leasing in the Fort Union Region.
First, we would like to commend the Bureau of Land
Management for their fine effort in the EIS of identifying all
the major areas of concern in assessing the regional impacts
associated with coal development.
Second, we support the leasing alternative 3, the
preferred leasing alternative selected by the Fort Union
Regional Coal Team, which calls for the leasing of 632.8
million tons of federal coal for new production.
Finally, on the issue of wet land reclamation, Utah
International recognizes the importance of wet lands as wild-
life habitat but strongly believes that not only can wet lands
be successfully reclaimed but that mining and reclamation pro-
vide an opportunity for enhancement of the wet land resources.
I would like to briefly discuss each of these points.
My first point reflects our belief that the Bureau of Land
Management has put forth a fine effort in preparing the
Environmental Impact Statement. Our staff has reviewed the
document and has found that the major technical areas of con-
cern have been adequately identified, addressed and analyzed
in a thorough and objective manner.
26
.
The Bureau of Land Management has done a commendable
job in the difficult task of assessing regional impacts
"
associated with the development of coal within the Fort Union
'
Region.
We will be submitting more-detailed written comments
"
on the Environmental Impact Statement on a later date.
Secondly, we support the preferred leasing alterna-
»
tive of 832.8 million tons of federal coal in 1984, 1983, which
■'
includes the leasing of federal coal on the Garrison Tract.
10.
This level of leasing will insure free competition and allow
»
the marketplace to determine allocation and development of the
12
coal resources of the region.
,:,
The proposed leasing target will provide for the
H
creation of a pool of coal reserves prior to development that
will allow for strategic planning by industry. This reserve
,c
pool will give industry more flexibility in meeting an
unexpected increase in demand, a sudden shortfall in supply or
,»
a shift in inter- regional demand.
30
«
My final point refers to an issue that is of concern
to us in the development of the Garrison Tract, wet land
reclamation. It is our strong belief that wet lands can be
successfully reclaimed and that mining and reclamation provide
an opportunity for wet land enhancement. Many wet land
ecologists agree that if a similar contour and surface reten-
tion capability is restored natural succession will restore
B.UC,SHO-TH1NOPEPOT™G
2-9
27
.
wet land in fifteen to twenty years. This practice could be
-
accelerated with the proper use of reclamation procedures such
<
as topsoiling, seeding, transplanting and fertilization. Wet
'
land enhancement can be achieved by combining a series of small
scattered wet lands in the course of reclamation to form one
large deeper wet land. This would provide approved wildlife
30
.
habitat for deep-water ducks such as redheads and canvasbacks
which are declining in the area while at the same time increas-
"
ing the efficiency of farming operations by reducing the number
in
of small scattered wet lands which interfere with efficient
"
farming methods. Thus, it is clearly within our technical
'■
capability not only to reclaim wet lands but to address
u
regional wet land concerns and to enhance wet lands and
14
optimize them to benefit certain featured wildlife species.
IS
We want to thank you for the opportunity to express
lb
17
MR. KELLER: Thank you.
The next person to offer testimony is Mr. Randolph
111
Jl
Nodland representing the Dakota Resources Council.
MR. NODLAND: My name is Randolph Nodland, and I
farm and ranch in Dunn County, and I am past chairman and board
member of the Dakota Resource Council and speak on their behalf
I am also a member of the Dunn County United
H
Plainsmen, a group of fifty farmers and ranchers living in and
around the area of Nokota's proposed methanol plant.
DAUCK SHORTHAND BEPOHTING
31
28
T am appearing here tonight to voice my concern aboul
the coal leasing policies of the Department of Interior. It
seems that that policy is only to deliver a great amount of
coal into the hands of industry without considering whether
that coal is really needed or whether the Department of Interii
is to receive fair market value when it is leased.
The recent coal sale in Wyoming is a good example, I
believe, because the coal market is soft. The public was cheal
out of fair market value for the coal leased. Of thirteen
tracts offered for sale two received no bids, eight received
one bid and only three had competitive bidding. I think there
is a potential for that same fiasco to happen in the Fort Unior
ale.
There currently is about sixteen and a half million
tons of coal already leased that is available for industry to
develop, and it seems incredible that the level of new leasing
that has been proposed is even being considered by anyone.
In the past we have been told by the Bureau of Land
Management that not much of the sixteen and a half million ton:
is feasible to mine. I would like to point to a 1981 Office ol
Technology assessment, this document here, report done for the
Congress of the United States. The OTA study points out that
only five percent of the leased federal reserves appear
undevelopable. Uncertainty surrounds around fifteen to twenty
percent because of factors such as transportation, the level of
29
.
synfuels development and other circumstances.
The OTA study goes on to state that annual growth
rates for electricity have dropped substantially and may stay
at a range of 2.5 percent to 4.1 percent annually assuming an
31
economic upturn in the next few years.
■
Finally, the study says that ninety-eight percent of
this sixteen and a half million tons is located in two coal
regions In the Northern Great Plains and seven coal regions In
»
the Rocky Mountain coal province. I think that this certainly
in
points out that the West is doing its fair share.
»
The OTA report concludes that synthetic fuels cannot
ii-
compete in the marketplace with gas and oil and would have to
13
depend on Government incentives and according to the report
14
IS
there will be very little synfuels production in the next ten
years.
32
.,
If development were to take place in North Dakota at
the level that the BLM projects one can only conclude that the
leasing of federal coal would bring a new series of requests to
the Health Department for waivers to air quality laws. There
is plenty of evidence that acid rainfall is becoming a serious
problem in our country because of the burning of fossil fuels.
Canada is becoming more and more upset with the United States
33
because of the light reaction on this problem, and I would like
to state that I don't think that the impact study addresses the
alternatives to the leasing of the federal coal very adequately,
33
-10
Just today, and I would like to point this out, ju
today on the newscast at noon, the media reported on an ethanol
plant that was going to be built at Walhalla, North Dakota, and
this plant was getting a $20,000,000 loan, and I assume that's
the cost of the plant, and this plant would produce 10.000,000
gallons of ethanol, grain alcohol, per year, and t did a little
calculating on this, and a plant this size for the cost of a
synfuels plant, roughly $3,000,000, you could build 150 plants,
ethanol plants, in North Dakota, and each plant—this plant,
according to the news media, would provide fifty-seven jobs.
Well, these 150 plants would provide, excuse me,
8,550 jobs whereas roughly a synfuels plant is providing about
3200 jobs or something like that during construction and much
less during operation, and these 150 plants would provide
something like a hundred and three thousand barrels of ethanol
per day. and this contrasts, I think, to the plant at Dunn
Center that's being proposed, I think, something like 83,000
barrels per day of methanol and 3,000 gallons of some gasoline
blend of some sort, so I--I would like to point that out.
Think of this in North Dakota if there were to be 150
plants this size. I don't know if that's feasible or not, but
the jobs that would be provided and the benefits to the farmers
In the state—almost every farmer in the state would benefit
from the grain sales to these plants, so. as I said, I don't
think that — that the alternatives to leasing have been con-
210
31
34
15
sidered very well, and one other thing which concerns me very
much, as Mr. Perdaems has pointed out, is the ground-water
problem when mining occurs. This is going to affect me in
Dunn County, and I would like to reiterate his comments on this
because to the general public when you hear these comments
that, well, the coal company has to supply you with a new
source of water. Well, this is just a start, because it does
nothing for you in the future.
The cost of these wells down to the Fox Hills, as
Mr. Perdaems stated, twenty, $30,000, you know, is something
that most farmers could not bear. Once the coal company is
gone and you have to drill new wells and maintain these wells,
with the economic conditions, why, this would break a lot of
people, and I think that there has to be some provision in the
law to take care of that.
ir,
in
in
If my son wants to farm or my grandson, well, he is
going to have to come up with this kind of money to drill new
wells to provide water, and this isn't fair.
This one-time obligation that the coal companies have
a
sounds good to the general public but it's--it's just a start
21
so that's all of my comments tonight, and I thank you for--
MR. KELLER: You are welcome.
*•
I would like to ask those people that offered comment:
*
if you would like to leave your written statements up here we
would like to have those statements if you would like to have
MUCH SMOHTHANO BEPOBTING
32
.
them left here.
I guess that concludes all of the statements that I
■■'
had an indication were going to be made. I would like to at
'
this time ask if there is anyone in the room that came here
with the intention of offering a formal oral comment at this
'■
hearing.
While we wait for a response on that, I would like to
also mention that the deadline for written comments on the EIS
■'
is October 8th with the exception of the air quality dimen-
,»
sions, which has a deadline of October 19th for written formal
"
comments to be presented so that they can also be recorded in
12
the record.
11
Okay. With that is there anyone in the room that
»
would like to offer formal oral comment at this time? Okay.
IS
Not seeing anyone, I guess I would like to just say thank you
v.
to all of you for showing the interest. I do know that the
«
coal team is vitally concerned about the concerns expressed by
,»
everyone. They will certainly be very carefully considered by
13
the coal team, and I am sure that the comments are going to be
-_'l
reviewed and considered not only by the coal team but the
Department of the Interior at the time that the final leasing
n
levels are established.
With that I again would just like to say thank you
for coming. Have a safe trip home.
(The hearing was then concluded at the hour of
run.
8:30 p.m., this 28th day of September, 1982.)
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, in the matter of a public hearing
the Fort Union Environmental Impact Statement, at the Civic
Center, Beulah, North Dakota, on Tuesday, September 28, 1982
were held as herein appears and that this is the original
transcript thereof for the file of the Department or Commiss
rtified Shorthand Reporter
and
stered Professional Reporte
TESTIMONY OF JOHN CHKISTIANO
AIR QUALITY DIVISION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT EIS ON FORT ONION COAL REGION
BEULAH, NORTH DAKOTA
SEPTEMBER 28, 1982
the Permit Review ai
I am John Chrlstlano, Chief
Air Quality Division, Nation
-.•■;■
I originally scheduled this visit to Beulah In order to appear at the State of
North Dakota permit hearing on Basin Electric's proposed Antelope Valley Station
Unit 13 at the high school here tomorrow night. At that permit hearing, I will
present the September 15, 1982, determination by the Federal Land Manager
that Basin Electric's proposed new facility, as well as five other proposed new
facilities whose permits are currently the subject of State hearings, will not
adversely affect Theodore Roosevelt National Park or the wilderness portion of
Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, both class I areas under the Clean Air
Act. In the Department of the Interior, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks. Mr. G. Ray Arnett, excercises the Secretary's authority
as Federal Land Manager for National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
areas. I directed the National Park Service's technical review on which the
Assistant Secrertary's determination of no adverse Impact was based. 1 would
like to present the Assistant Secretary's determination, with Its supporting
documentations, for the record tonight.
When the Bureau of Land Management released the air quality supplement to Its
Draft CIS on coal leasing and development In the Fort Union Basin, questions
were raised In the press as to whether or not BLM's analysis was consistent
with the Assistant Secretary's determination of no adverse Impact. When we
learned that BLM had scheduled a hearing on the Fort Union Coal Draft EIS In
2-11
iked
night before the State's
come to Beulah a day early
hearing for Basin Electric, I
der to attend tonight's hearing
My remarks tonight have a United purpose; to address the relationship b
the air quality discussion In BLM's draft EIS, and the National Park Seru
air quality analysis In the determination of no adverse impact on Theodor
Roosevelt National Park and the wilderness portions of Lostwood National
Wildlife Refuge.
35
As I will explain In
draft EIS le not Inc
apparent difference
in the purpose, scop
Is a planning
NPS analysis
^stiraony tonight, BLM's air quality discussion Ii
eat with the National Park Service's determlnat
: proposed facilities now seeking State permits.
agencies' conclusions merely reflect Che dlffe
;Ubje.
■ of
tudii
is important to understand that the BLM and NPS analyses
he same purposes. Very simply stated, Che BUI document
Intended to be used for leasing decisions, whereas the
specific and is used for permitting decisions. More
specifically, the National Park Service performed a source-specific determinate
under the Clean Ur Act and the NPS Organic Act based on modeling of emissions
from existing major sources and predicted emissions from the six proposed faci-
lities currently under State permit review. The NPS examined the six proposed
facilities and found no adverse impact on the class I areas.
The Bureau of Land Management, on the other hand, performed a broad environmen-
tal review under NEPA of the potential Impacts on air quality of regional coal
leasing and related development based on modeling of emissions from existing
35
facilities, plus predicted emissions from currently proposed facilities, plu:
potential emissions from foreseeable future facilities. The Bureau of Land
Management analyzed these future facilities and found the potential for air
quality impacts on the park.
lfferent purposes, scope, and subje
of the two studle.
luslo.
sis
onfident that i
facilities that a
will not have an .
The National Park Service
currently seeking "permits to construct"
impact on the park and the refuge wllden
These facilities are:
1. Basin Electric Power Cooperatlv.
to the Antelope Valley Electric
2. Warren Petroleum's proposed expi
facility;
3. Nokota Company's proposed coal-to-methanol plant;
It. Minnesota Power and Light's proposed 500 MW electric generating
i proposed 500 MW unit ei
derating Station;
5. Amoco Production Co(
; processing facility;
6. Phillips Petroleum Company's proposed natural gas processing facility.
As to any future facilities, however, such as those other facilities included
In BLM's draft air quality analysis, the National Park. Service cannot say at
this time whether these future facilities will have an adverse impact on the
tudy and review of
36
The Clean Air Act provides the opportunity for this study and review In the
new source permitting process. Section 165(d) of the Act protects the air
quality related values, including visibility, of class I air quality areas
like Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
Under this section, before any major emitting facility may obtain a permit to
an adverse Impact on the park, that facility would not be granted a cerltflca-
No major facility that has applied for a permit to date has the potential to
Impact the park adversely, and no major facility that could potentially Impact
the park adversely will be able to obtain a permit In the future without a
As a second and final point tonight. I would like to say a word about what con-
stitutes an "adverse impact" under the Clean Air Act. BLM's draft EIS notes
that coal leasing and development may trigger "potentially significant adverse
visual Impacts." Whether, and to what degree, visibility will be Impaired by a
proposed source Is an essential part of the National Park Service's review node
section 165(d). In accordance with the definitions of "adverse Impact" estab-
lished by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park Service,
this review Includes not only the Intensity of the predicted visibility Impair-
ment, which BLM has done, but also the duration, frequency, and time of the
Impairment. Had BLM applied the established definitions of "adverse," Us
discussion of potential impacts would have been better focused.
The Environmental Protection Agency defines an "adverse Impact on visibility"
,. -.I.1U1U, ,.p.lr«„i Aid. IM.rf.r.. -1th ,h. „„.„««„,, prot.ct.on.
The regulations clearly make a distinction between "visibility Impairment",
which Is defined as any humanly perceptible change, which both HLM and NPS find
can occur from increased emissions, and adverse impact", which is defined as
36
JU
duration or frequency as to interfere with the preservation of the area or
with the visitor's visual enjoyment of the area.
The National Park Service adds that anv^ Impact on the park is adverse if it
(t) diminishes the park's national significance, (2) impairs the structure and
functioning of Its ecosystems, or O) Impairs the quality of the visitor exper-
ience. Thus, an impact on visibility Is not necessarily significant or adverse
Just because It Is perceptible by an observer.
We suggest that BLM Include these factors in Its air quality analysis for the
final EIS. The determination of whether any visibility Impairment from future
proposed sources will be adverse Is, of course, one made by the Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks in the section 165 new source review
_>">««>•
The National Park Service Is now reviewing BLM's draft EIS and the supplemental
air quality report, and will submit more detailed comments before the end of
the extended comment period.
5
2-12
37
38
TESTIMONY OF THE STARK COUNTY IMPACT ASSOCIATION
FORT UNION EIS HEARING, BEULAH, ND
SEPTEMBER 28, 1982
My name is Jerry Perdaems, I farm and ranch in western
Stark County and speak today on behalf of the Stark County
Imapact Association.
The stark Counly Impact Association is an organization
e use of our mineral resources, and the
preservation of our agricultural economy and life:
We have examined the Fort Union Draft EIS and will con-
cent! ate our omments on the Zenith Coal Tract in Western
inty. In our opinion, the Zenith tract should be omitted
from consideration Tor leasing in 1983, 1985 or at any future
We feel that the LIS strongly supports some of our concerns
about the negative impacts that will occur if the Zenith Tract
is developed. Because of the impacts, the Fori Union Coal Team
ranked the Zenith Tract last out of 17 tracks ranked in the EIS.
Despite this low ranking, the Zenith Tract is Included in 3 out
of the G alternatives, giving it a significant chance of being
leased . We have not rorgotten that Interior doubled the amounl
of coal that the Regiona iifl suggested be offered in the
Fori Union Region.
One of our concerns is the impact of mining on ground and
surface waters. The Zenith Tract is situated so that it could
greatly sffei i tin water supply of the City of Dickinson. Page
106 of the Draft EIS state* thai U Vi act is mined
the water in Lake Patterson will drop below water quality
2.
standards, and that the quantity "1 water in the Lake may also
be degraded.
In addition, shallow gound water sources up to 2 miles
around thi pei lm< ter of the mine site will be destroyed —
amounting to 50 square miles outside of the tract itself. This
could quite possibly destroy the public well systems of Belfield
■3Q
and South Heart, as well as many privately owned wells.
DO
Although coal companies ire required by law to replace
wells destroyed by stripmining, those people outside of the
mining area who have lost their wells have had trouble proving
in court that the well loss was due to stripmining. Even if
the well is replaced, the new well will probably reach down to
the Fox Hills formation at a cost of approximately $20,000.
But this is a one time obligation with no regard to the costs
of maintains these wells or drilling new ones as they are needed.
— Another area of concern is air quality. Dickinson, South
Heart, and Belfield will all be affected by dust from surface
mining and pollutants from coal conversion plants. South Heart
and Dickinson arc directly down wind of the mine site with
South Heart only a mile from boundary. The western
edge of the mine tract borders the City of Belfii Ld
*3Q
The EIS indicates the the national standard for suspended
JJ
particulates will be violated for all the leasing alternatives.
In addition, the amount of sulfur dioxide and ozone pollution
will increase . Research has shown conclusively that these
Hants ar< dangerous to human health as well as agricultural
production. In fact, studies indicati that substantial crop losses
39l
40
dy occurring in North Dakota from air pollution.
The Stark County Impact Association also has some social
and economic concerns in the event of a large energy project
on the Zenith Tract. Small towns in the area will have massive
influxes of workers and their families, putting a tremendous
strain on the social fabric and financial resources of the
communities. Experience with coal development in Mercer County
has taught us that impact money has been too little and too
late to adequately cope with these problems. Local property
owners usually end up bearing the brunt of the fiscal impacts.
Agriculture has been the mainstay of our economy since
this land was homesteaded. We have some fine, productive farm
land in western North Dakota, including that in and around the
Zenith Tract. Hopefully our great grandchildren can make the
^
s
NORTH DAKOTA
$£h
STATr DEPARTMi NT OF HEALTH
gs
Sun Op.tol m A K Lomnwn M0 RPE
Biunwck. Nonh Dakota 58505 Slate Health Oflkw
Environmental Health Section
1200MiwouriAveniM
Biimwck. North Dakota S850I
September 27, 1982
Buree
u of Land Management
P.O.
Box 30157
Billi
ngs, Montana 59107
ATTENTION; Mr. Lloyd Emmons
Acting Project Manager
Gentl
emen:
The North Dakota State Department of Health has reviewed the
July
1982, Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the
Septc
mber 1982, Air Quality Information Supplemental document.
We he
ve a number of comments following this review which are
here*.
ith presented at the Beulah, North Dakota Hearing.
41
1. We understand the rationale of end-use considerations
of coal leasing actions in preparation of environmental
impact statements such as this. The leasing of
coal is no guarantee that a mine mouth facility
will be allowed to use the coal. A site-specific
review of a proposed project such as a power
plant, gasification plant, or a liquif ication
plant would have to be performed and evaluated by
the respective permitting agencies in North Dakota
and Montana, as well as be acceptable to the
Federal Land Manager in Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This end-use
analysis would take place before any of the new
facilities, as outlined in this draft, would be
considered for a permit to construct or operate.
This is discussed briefly in the draft document,
however, it should be reiterated perhaps in the
supplemental air quality summary. Based upon
present regulatory requirements, there is a limit
as to how much energy development will he allowed.
or where it will be allowed.
£„,„„„„,„,„,
tn,„onmtnul Env.room.r.u. En«„onrflefital Wain rVanrSui 1 ft
EMorcemmi
EnBlnttrtnt Sanitation M.mwmen. ft B™«.ch PoUuikm C=n„o>
?owi4-»4s 701 U4 ;jh: jot ?ja. jaw joi IM-23S4
213
September 27, 1482
September 27, 1982
42
43
44
It should also be pointed out that the qeneric
facilities studied in this draft are assumed to
have emission control devices and subsequently
emission rates similar to the types of facilities
which have been permitted to date. This does not
take into account technological advancements which
could take place over the next 10 to 15 years
before a specific type plant is operated at a
specific lease. Tn that sense, this draft may be
over-estimating the air quality impacts, however,
for the purpose of estimating future possible
impacts, we feel it is better to be on the conserv
side.
"The modeling sti
by the BLM, its i
the North Dakota
Montana Air Qual:
Comment
dy plan was
State Depar
cooperatively developed
:hc subcontractors,
:ment of Health, the
ind the U.S. Environmenta
I." (Pane S-ll )
that
id ■-
Of Hi
The Department recog
with BLM durino 1981
air quality using st
However, this statem
Dakota State Departm
study's work plan of usin
for determining the air qu
project facilities. To th
was never involved with de
Department staff were invo
the first introduced the c
staff (April 1982) and the
preliminary draft analysis
1982). The Department was not offered any opportunity
to comment on the BLM bid solicitation documents
before contractors were selected, on proposed air
quality modeling methodologies, or on the final
draft before it was published.
2-2 >." (Page
did cooperate
ary modeling of
rt range models,
that the North
approved the
the mesoscale model
ity impacts of the
contrary, the Departme
loping of such a plan.
econd pi
44
45
46
47
Comment
The figu
-e shown indica
fluctuation of
measure of soi
es a drought index, which
annual precipitation, but
moisture balance which
Draft
(Appendix F)." (Page S-121
compiled
"Regional air quality was modeled with em
representing each of the two non-project t
{1975 and 19Q7 sources)." (Page S-16)
asolines
■i
It is apparent that the title of the table for
Appendix F is misleading and that the inventory
shown includes both of the two non-project baseli
The table does not distinguish those sources whic
were in each of the baselines.
were included in the regional modeling analysis.
On Page 6 of the draft released in July, it was
stated that up to 13 (Alternate 6) new facilities
would be analyzed, in addition to the existing
background. Only two of the six pendino permit
applications. Basin Electric and the llokota Company,
are included in the new facilities being analyzed
by the Environmental Impact Statement. However,
in Appendix F "Emissions Sources for 1975 Baseline",
the Basin Electric Unit 3 and Nokota facilities
are included. Were the emissions from these
facilities counted twice? It would appear from
review of Appendix E (pollutant emissions of the
respective alternatives) that this is not the
case, however, this needs clarification.
Draft
"MESOPUFF was adapted by the North Dakota St.ite
Department of Health for regional ascssments in
North Dakota and was approved in a recent North
Dakota State Department of Health quideline for
long-range air quality analysis (MDSDH, 1982)."
(Page S-14 )
of Land Management
September 27, 19e2
September 27, 1982
47
48
49
The BLM impact assessment i3 not subject to many
of those constraints involved m the choice of
models and their application in a PSD new source
review under state and EPA regulations. However,
i t remains desi rable to use model s recog ni zed by
air quality regulatory agencies as models acceptable
and appropriate for air quality impact assessments.
BLM and the contractor were notified that the use
of mesoscale air quality model for air quality
impact assessments must be approved by EPA each
time it is used for a PSD impact assessment.
Although the NDSDH has selected this model for
mesoscale transport distances, this application
requires EPA approval in each PSD new source
Draft
"The MDSDH version of MESOPUFF was modified by the
ECOS study team to model both point and area
source emissions and to simultaneously predict
impacts for the four modeled pollutants throughout
the study region." (Page 3-14)
Pespon
The Department is not aware of any peer
these modifications by recognized experts in air
quality modeling. The analysis of short-term air
quality impacts and the results indicated in the
report appear, in part, to be dependent upon these
modifications. A completed peer review would have
provided the experts' perception of the technical
applicability of these modifications.
Draft
"It is generally accepted that impact predictions
by these models are accurate to within a factor of
two." (Page S-15)
of modeling experts
49
50
51
th
xist. The Depart
n such a way that it
tmospheric dispersion
dopted by EPA. Some r
predictions of the
conditions, are b
nt modi f ied
he MESOPUFF model
short-range model S
tudies suggest that
t-range models, under
tha
Draft
"There are only two locations (Bis
Glasgow) within the entire study r
upper level meteoroloqical data ar
." (Page S-16)
At the request of the contractor,
provided him with a copy of the me
data base the Department was uti li
of the mesoscale model. That data
data from A other rawinsonde stati
which is Rapid City. The Departme
the Rapid City location would have
reliability and accuracy of the re
analysis for ELM. The report does
why data for the Rapid City statio
Draft
e Depar
tment
orologi
cal
nn for
of
believ
es that
mprovec
the
Its of
the
■Ear
i er model i ng
studi
es co
nd
cted
>y the NDSDH
indi
rated that me
eoro:
1
ondit
ons on July
3-6,
1964, result
:ion of
he 24-hour
max!
for s
ulfur
d
oxide
TRNP-North
unit
by existing
PSD >
sourc
es
and those for which
PSD
aermi t applications
(Page S-14,
unde
rlined words added
is noted that other meteorological episodes
considered in this study could lead to consumpti
existing and pending PSn sources of PSn Class I
rementa for sulfur dioxide at other Class I
as in the Fort Union Coal Reaion. As an example,
NDSDH found that 1977 baseline sources can
ult in the consumption of the 24-hour average
increment at the TRNP-South unit during the
uary 10-12, 1964, episode. (Page S-14)
ale models does not
"Only wors
these are
acceptable
were evaluated,
in determining
(Page S-15)
bee
2-14
Bureau of Land !
September 27, 1982
51
Si]h )f,
ll
"Therefore, while the modeling studies repr
worst-case impacts for TRNP (-North), and m
represent worst-case impacts for other area
the region, such as Indian reservations and
refuaes, the latter assumption is less than
(Page S-16, underlined words added)
The
Depart*
ent con
tends
that the w
srst-c.
se s
e n a
were not ev
aluated
with
good 1
ke
ihood
for
the
all
Class 1
areas
except
TRNP-N
td tha
appears les
s than
-ertai
n that
he
July
-6 case
ct, worst-case for this area.
As noted above, the report correctly
indicates that the Department found that
worst-case scenarios differed for each
of the North and South units of the
TRNP. This occurs through the geographi
e 1 a
r.shi
nder
. w
ith the Cla
I
e sources used by the Department
re the existing permitted PSD
and the proposed PSD sources
1975 baseline sources), the
nt found that worst-case impacts
under unique meteorological
ach of the Cla
T
Each of the proposed project altern
2 through 6, consist of different s
scenarios, therefore, having differ
geographical dispersement of source
Tt"
e repor
does n
>t pr
>vide a
dequ?
i e
tden
-e is justi
icat
support
on that
the
.'
oro
BC
enar
O V
ould li
cely
;ontim
e to
be
the
Ji
ly 3
-5 <
ase for
each
of the
alternativ
2
r hi 1
gh
6.
September 27, 1982
52
53
54
(1975
and
1997 soi
rces
—The resul
ting pollu
concor
tra
ions fo
i f
altern
ive we
re added t
those
for
the baseli
ies
at
each
point
in the
modeli
ng grid cov<
ri
iq
the
qeoq
aphica
1 are*. T
estims
ted
on for
each pol 1
and a\
eraging per
od
WA
s then added un
iformly to
these
entrati'
ie
Ids
for
ion relati
AAQS." (P*
.,-■
S-
16)
Respor
se
The estimated ambient pollutant background
are provided in TaMe 3-2 on Page S-15. T
estimates were based on years generally af
(Page S-15). Therefore, it appears that t
existing or background concentrations woul
the actual 1975 baseline source contribute
ambient air quality.
Tin;
Table
rlude
eluded
ms appropr
e quoted above substanti
nd 3-4, the 1975 basclin
sources impact upon air quality is i
twice. Further, it seems reasonable to conclude
that the maximum total shown in both tables would
be an over-estimate of the projected air quality,
again given the quote above and the presence of
both background and 1975 bas<
the
table
te and federal regulations for the prevents
significant deterioration provide that the
rt-term (3- and 24-hour) increments can be
ceded only once per year. The increments a
en in Table 2-3 on Paaes S-9 of the BIS doc
note, that the document does not indii
one exceedance of the short-term inc
owed by these regulations.
- ii.i
DO]
1 979 . Apparent ly, the
Coal Region CIS were un
expands upon the work a
phase effort.
n, the Department compl
search of emissions of
al-fired power plant in
uthors of the Fort Unio
ware of a report which
d conclusions of the fi
55
September 27, 1982
Draft
"In most of the Fort Onion Region, the annual
precipitation pH average has been, at least until
very recently, in the range of 6.0-F.5, or less
acidic than expected for precipitation with atmosphe
carbon dioxide. However, current data being
obtained in North Dakota indicate that precipitation
is more acidic than could be caused by carbon
dioxide — ." (Page S-5)
"The pH of pu
accepted
er at equi libriu
tandard pressure
be 5.65." (Page S-36)
"Analysis of samples collected between April and
December 1981 indicates mean pH values somewhat
lower than had previously been estimated or extrapo
based on data from locations outside the state
(NDSDH, 1982)." (Page S-36)
"However, if the mean pH values as measured are
indicative of a trend toward increasing acidity,
the buffering capacity (of surface waters) will
eventually be consumed and pH levels may decrease
to the point that would indicate serious effects."
(Page S-36, underlined words added)
■However, based on the studies by the North Dakota
State Department of Health, which indicate widespre
incidence of significantly acid precipitation, and
in view of terrestrial and aquatic systems which
could not withstand long-term trends of increased
acidity, impacts in the region are indeed possible,
." (Page S-37)
980, a Department staffer devoted seven
hs of researching literature which described
precipitation, collection, sample handlina an
age, laboratory preparation of samples, and
rument analysis of samples. This extensive
ew of procedures produced the basic protocol
used by the Department in the precipitation
istry project.
At the conclusion of th
procedures used during 1^77
ffo
of the
ureau of Land Management
55
September 27, 1982
It was determined that the integrity of several
aspects of these 1977 procedures was unacceptable
and that the pH data of precipitation provided
during the 1977 season was not valid. It is
important to note that this conclusion was prepared
before the 1981 season.
It
ewortliy that, since that
ent has not reproduced or
any of its reports.
Because the 1977 d.
determined to be inaccura
compared to 1981 data for
implying, or otherwise co
occurring in North Dakota
alid.
The so.
present precipi
f the Department has been
rate, that data cannot be
or the purpose of inferring
concluding that a trend is
Thus, the implications
eport of the Department
has
olle
try proje
mple
the
possibil
ity of a trenc
Ret
sntly, ma
ny investigators have beat
n to challen
th«
previous
contention t!
at precipiti
equ
librium
with standard
gases should
hav
> a pH ol
5.65. These
investigatoi
s have been
suggesting that precipita
ion in an ur
contaminated
atmosphere may have a pH \
alue near 5
r. i
ainly, s
ulfur and nit
oaen oxide t
missions
ng during the
1081 season
the
chemica]
analysis of
hose 1981 sa
mples does
not
provide
any ability to different!,:
te the
influence ol
infall pH.
The
chemical
analysis proi
ided a basis
by
theoretic
al considerat
ons that inc
reased
jspheric
loading of these contamina
nts should
lit in a
decreased rainfall pH. However, the
study could
not, and did
ot, attempt
to relate
the
required
amount of increased loadi
ng to produc
a d
scernabl
e change in r.
infa) 1 pH.
Dep
irtment c
f Health rece
ved the Air
Quality
in S
iDplement
al Document o
September 21, 1982, and
*!i
.y and CI
imate Technics
1 Report Doc
ument on
24,
the Depa
rtment reserve
s the riant
to submit
Informal
the Air '
Septembe
additional comments by Octobe
ntal Health Secti
2-15
56
Statement of Randolph Nodland, Dunn Center, ND
Fort Union Draft Environmental Impact Statement Hearings
Beulah, ND, September 28, 1982.
My name is Randolph Nodland. I farm and ranch in
Dunn County. I am past chairman and a board member of the
Dakota Resource Council, and speak on their behalf.
i am appearing here tonight to voice my concern
about the coal leasing policies of the department of interior,
it seems that policy is only to deliver a great amount of coal
into the hands of industry without considering whether that
coal is really needed, or whether the department of interior
is to receive fair market value when it is leased.
the recent coal lease sale in wyoming is a good example,
I believe. Because the coal market is soft, the public was
CHEATED OUT OF FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE COAL LEASED. Of THE
13 TRACTS OFFERED FOR SALE, 2 RECEIVED NO BIDS, 3 RECEIVED 1
BID, AND ONLY 3 HAD COMPETITIVE BIDDING. I THINK THERE IS
POTENTIAL FOR THE SAME FIASCO TO HAPPEN IN A FORT UNION LEASE
SALE.
There currently is about 16.5 billion tons of coal
already leased that is available for industry to develop, and
it seems incredible that the level of new leasing that has been
proposed is even being considered by anyone.
56
57
Randolph Nodland, p. 2.
In the past we have been told by the Bureau of Land
Management that not much of this IE. 5 billion tons is feasible
to mine. i would like to point to a 1981 office of technology
Assessment report done for the Congress of the United States.
The OTA study points out that only 5% of the leased Federal
reserves appear undevelopable. Uncertainty surrounds another
15 to 20% because of factors such as transportation, the
level of synfuels development, and other circumstances.
The OTA study goes on to state that annual growth rates for
electricity have dropped substantially and may stay at a
range of 2.52 TO 4.12 annually, assuming an economic upturn
in the next few years. Finally, the study says that 98%
OF THIS 16.5 billion tons is located in two coal regions in THE
Northern Great Plains and seven coal regions in the Rocky
Mountain Coal Province. I think this certainly points out that
THE ^EST IS DOING ITS FAIR SHARE.
The OTA report concludes that synthetic fuels cannot compete
in the market place with gas and oil, and would have to depend
on government incentives. according to the report there will
be very little synfuels production in the next 10 years.
if development were to take place in north dakota at
the level that the bui projects, one can only conclude that
the leasing of federal coal would bring a new series of requests
to the Health Department for waivers to air quality laws. There
IS PLENTY OF evidence that acid rainfall is becoming A SERIOUS
57
Randolph Nodland, p. 3.
problem in our country because of the burning of fossil fuels,
Canada is becoming more and more upset with the United States
because of the lack of action on this problem.
Statement of Albert L. Boeckel, Beulah, ND
Fort Union Draft Environmental Impact Statement Hearings
September 29, 1982
1, Albert Boeckel, Beulah, ND, do object to further
leasing of Federal coal on the grounds of coal mining's
effect on agr lcul ture--the nation's number one industry in terms of
importance to all, and in terms of being the biggest economic
industry in America. (Kiplinger Agricultural Letter, July 10, 1981)
My specific objection at this time involves water used
in agriculture. The Environmental Impact Statement does not
give a full accounting of the problems involved in replacing
groundwater losses due to strip-min ing , and minimizes the
costs and hardships encountered by farmers. I take exception to
to the Impact Statements conclusions on page 105, from which
1 quote. "Degradation of the water quality in the near surface
aquifers will render these aquifers almost useless, and this con-
flit ion will continue indefinitely However, any wells that are
CO
established prior to mining and are degraded by mining activity
JO
will have to be replaced by the mining company. This will apply to
wells inside and outside of the tract or mine area."
The first sentence is certainly true, but the rest is purely
a naive assumption that neglects the realities of dealing with
coal companies. I support my view with my own experience.
I live one to two miles northeast from where coal was
extracted and stockpiled in a low spot by Basin Electric Cooperative.
2-16
58
I live on a large hill. Basin employees warned about water veins
being opened against the large hillside on which my farm and
wells are located. I was told of water draining continuously
from the hill, and that wells on the hill could go dry.
North American Coal Corporation had my wells certified and
I asked on employee informally about this. He said it should not
affet my water supply. As time went on, however, I noticed that my
livestock water pump was running excessively. Thinking I had a
hole in the pipes or had worn leathers in the cylinder, I let it
go until I had time to pull the pump out. That is when I found no
problem with the hardware, but called North American Coal, as they
had instructed me to if I had water problems. They checked my
livestock veil and certified it as going dry.
We farmers and ranchers are constantly being told by industry,
"Don't worry, sir. If we cause your wells to go dry, we a liable
and therefore have to make you a new well." So I wanted to know
from North American Coal what they were going to do. Well, their
promise still holds. If they are liable for drying wells, they wil
make new ones or provide alternate sources of water some other way.
There is a catch however: if they are liable. The company
turned me down, then sent me to the Public Service Commission,
who told me on the telephone that I have to prove liability. How
can I do that? The only thing I have is a history of the well, not
legal credentials. My mother is still around, aged seventy, who
attests that it never faltered, not even in the dry thirties. I
cannot recall us even running low on water. The 1976 certification
could not even lower the flow one inch with my pump. Three years
58
Albert Boeckel, p. 3.
later, by the spring of 1981, it was going dry.
North American Coal contends that my water problem is
not connected to Basin-North American activities in Antelope
Valley. Their official conclusion is that it went dry because of
the lack of snowfall in the winters of 1979-1980, and 1980-81.
Yet, the last time North American Coal checked it in the spring of
1982, I had had lots of snow and rain. Still the well had worsened.
My house well is also going dry, even though we use very little
water in the house. 1 had to haul water for my livestock last
winter from January, 1982 on through the snow and cold. I dread thi
coming winter. I have never had such unpleasantry in my life
I
as I had in raising cattle after the dams and dugouts froze over.
So, you can see that repairing damages caused by strip-mining
are more involved than the Environmental Impact Statement suggests.
I am against further leasing of Federal Coal until our agricultural
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
In the Matter of:
PUBLIC HEARINC CONCERNING THE
FORT UNION ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT.
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, September
7:30 p.m.
Community Room
Dawson County Courtho
G 1 end ive , Mon tana
APPEARANCES:
RALPH DRIEAR, Hearing Of fie
Myron Schultz
Tom Breitbach
Creg Veit
Mrs. Bud Steven
Charles Yarger
Solvejg Howard
Marty Holmes
Nell Kubesh
Irene Moffett
Leida Hubing
Helen Waller
David Kasten
Steve Elliot
217
3
PROCEEDINGS
s
MP. DRIEAR: We will get started this evening.
:l
I would like to welcome you all to this public hear-
4
ing on the Fort Union Coal Regional Leasing EIS. My name is
-
Ralph Driear. I represent the governor's office, State of
Montana, and the State of Montana's participation in the Fort
'
Union Regional Coal Team.
»
The hearing this evening is to receive public testi-
mony, both written and oral, on the Draft Fort Union Coal
Leasing EIS and also to receive comments on the Supplemental
11
12
Air Quality Statement which was just recently released by the
Bureau of Land Management. The public comments will be
l :
accepted on the Draft EIS until the 8th of October and the
14
comments on the Air Quality Supplement will be accepted until
15
the 19th of October.
Hi
IT
I want to say a little bit about the format this
evening. I want to remind you that this is not set up to be a
question-and-answer session nor is it a debate session.
We have a number of oral comments this evening, quite
a few, and I would ask that because of this that those people
making oral comments please try to limit their statements to
about ten minutes in length. If you have rather lengthy
testimony please try to summarize the testimony for us.
We have a court recorder here this evening that will
be taking down all of the oral testimony and transcription
59
copies of all of the testimony delivered this evening will be
available in the future. The comments received this evening
will be considered by the Bureau of Land Management staff in
preparing their Final EIS for the Fort Union Coal Leasing
Program. The comments, I am sure, will also be of interest to
and be considered by the Fort Union Regional Coal Leasing Team.
The testimony this evening--I am going to be calling
names from the cards that have been filled in and have these
people step to the rostrum, and I would ask that you please
state your name and who you are representing for the record
when you do make a written statement.
At this time I would like to formally open the record
and begin calling speakers. Myron Schultz, please.
MR. SCHULTZ: My name is Myron Schultz. I am
President of Dawson Resource Council, and I am also owner and
partner of a grain farm near Bloomfield, Montana.
In the introductory letter in the Draft EIS by State
Director Penfold, he says, "Testimony received through written
or oral comments at the formal hearings will be considered dur-
ing the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
No decision on the proposed lease sale will be made until the
al Environmental Impact Statement is completed."
On Page 73 it states, "The Regional Coal Tean was
open-minded on the issue regarding their final recommends b
the Secretary of the Interior scheduled for January, 1983,
59
60
and was still looking for public input prior to that time."
Based on the above quotes, which are just two of the
many quotes I could have stated, it is apparent that public
input is to have direct influence on final decisions made in
regards to the Fort Union Region coal.
Has this, in fact, been the case? When you review
the public input given at the formal hearings held on May 6th
and October 21, 1981, and compare that to the Draft EIS it is
very apparent that the Secretary of the Interior's desires take
priority over the majority public input in the decisions that
are made and proposed.
Then we were told very emphatically at the Wibaux,
Montana, public meeting on September 1st that the Draft EIS is
a forewarning >l what is to come, so it becomes very evident
that we are being subjected to nothing but double-talk, and it
causes us to seriously wonder if the die is cast, the final
decision already made and the public meetings and formal hear-
ings are held merely to comply with federal regulations, so I
challenge the regional coal team to listen very carefully to
the public comments made, especially by the people who live in
the areas proposed for coal mining and related development, and
then base their final decisions and recommendations on these
On Page 1 of the
This means that o
Oductton in the Draft EIS
ill be leased to actively
60
61
62
esponse to
national energy requirements and not just
individual companies." This being the case, where is the in
depth, accurate, detailed, comprehensive study as to the nat
energy requirements and, therefore, need for the coal leasin
target? I have asked to see and research this study of need
numerous times and at several other bearings and have yet to
receive it. I seriously wonder if one exists.
When we look at our present glut of coal, the numb.
of present federal coal leases not developed in any way, the
Powder River Basin coal leased below fair market value, the
number of nuclear power plants that have gone belly up, a
message comes out very clear. That message — there is no sub'
stantial need for leasing and developing coal in the Fort Union
As I studied the Draft EIS, I
many confusing, inaccurate and incomplet
On Page (>3 is this statement, "There wou
s appalled at the
statements and chart?
not be any addi-
tional agricultural disturbance — merely alternative areas being
mined that would otherwise be bypassed in ongoing mining opera-
tions."
Further on Page 1U for alternative 3 we read, "These
losses would not significantly reduce regional agricultural
production, nor would the agriculture support economy be
ffected. Within the overall structure of an agricultural
conomy subjected to fluctuations in supply and demand, interest
218
7
rates and weather cycles, the regional impacts associated with
-
energy development within the Fort Union tracts are miniscule.'
■■<
Being directly involved in agriculture as a grain
!
farmer for the past thirty years, I seriously question the
validity of the above-quoted statements. To brush off the very
62
in
ii
i
great and far-reaching impacts on agriculture as being mini-
scule is totally absurd.
Losing or destroying even one percent of the agri-
cultural production of an area is very significant and no
amount of compensation by energy development companies will
offset this kind of loss. The energy compensation is a one-
time, short-term situation while agricultural loss is a contin-
l :
uing long-term program — problem. Excuse me.
1 i
IS
The Draft EIS addresses very inadequately the on-site
impacts, but it completely ignores the off-site, off-tract
63
16
impacts which are just as severe and destructive, or even more
»
so, than the on-site impacts. The only compensation alterna-
"
tive is for the property owner to take the case to court. This
1!>
alternative just does not solve the problem and it indicates an
L"
irresponsibility toward those suffering the off-site tracts.
M
The confusing statements regarding reclamation makes
64
the Draft EIS hardly credible as a basis for decision making.
':
To quote from Page 41, "Post-mining land use would be the same
24
as pre-mining use." To quote from Page 63, "Successful recla-
25
mation of wet lands, woody draws and native prairie is yet to
8
.
be proved." And then to quote from Page 89, "Preliminary indi-
cation are that agricultural productivity of mined land
64
;i
can be restored." The above quotes indicate we have a long way
1
to go in adequate reclamation. Therefore, it is not accurate
or credible to make statements concerning the success of recla-
There are many more inaccurate and confusing state-
ments in the Draft EIS, but for sake of brevity I will suffice
«
with the above. I would like to conclude by challenging the
in
regional coal team and the others who will be responsible for
ii
11!
the Final EIS to spend some time out in the areas of proposed
activity and visit with the people who will be directly
13
affected both on tract and off tract to get some accurate
14
information rather than just assumptions and confusing state-
IS
ments. I would also challenge them to look very closely at the
10
19
HI
need for development before making decisions or recommendations
I thank you. That's the end of my testimony, and I
would like to read a very brief testimony for Robert and Norma
Etzel from Savage, Montana. They could not be here tonight.
"We have mixed emotions about testifying at this
hearing. We feel that the majority of the input from the
.
public is either ignored or given very little consideration.
There seems to be so many of these hearings and they do cut
into valuable time.
65r
"As to the effects of mining on air quality, it is
9
only a matter of common sense. With the wind we have in this
country, and disturbance of the sod will pollute the air, to
65
»
say nothing about the plants burning the coal. Living in a
4
southeasterly position of the existing Knift River Mine at
Savage with our prevailing west winds has given us firsthand
■
knowledge of what happens. Again, common sense will tell you
■
what happens to coal dust in a wind. Could we turn into a
_«
black lung area if mining were done on a larger scale?
66
»
"Another area of concern is water pollution and deple-
10
tion. How can a natural spring be replaced or a water vein
11
reactivated if disturbed? What will the residue from the syn-
67
12
fuel plants do to the grazing and agricultural land? It is our
13
understanding that cattle near plants will not feed on the
L"
grass.
15
"We believe development is essential when there is a
1C
IT
definite need. Liken energy to money. When there is not as
much, you tend to use it more wisely. At the present, many
mines have cut back production due to lack of demand.
ri
"To date, reclamation in areas has not proven up as
68
a
much of the reclaimed land has not returned to prior usage.
.'1
Weeds seem to thrive best in mined areas.
"In granting permits for plants and mines, there
69
-■;
should be a guarantee that energy will be produced. Consumers
-''
should not have to pick up the tab for projects which fail.
Being in the business of farming, it would be nice if we could
l(
)
69[
pass on the cost of producing crops whether we got anything or
»
"We have seen the social impacts of the oil boom in
<
the area. Things are now on the slow-down side and many native
people are feeling the effects. The work forces will just move
on and upset some other community. We read recently of the oil
lease sale and are wondering if the huge coal lease sale pro-
70
N
posed at such a time will result in the same give-away pricing.
This may be a time when leasing less could be better. We
in
remember of a leasing in our area in the Sixties on which there
i i
has been no development.
12
"What are the priorities of mining companies? Profit
13
would be our assumption. Our priority is a healthy place to
14
live. We do not go begging to mining concerns for their money.
Ki
We do the best we can with what we have. That is more than you
,0
can say for mining concerns. They are insistent on changing
17
our environment by any means they can. Otherwise they would
18
l!l
21
not always be working to change eminent domain laws to their
advantage or constantly hounding landowners to sell after they
have been told no.
"Couldn't we all consider doing with less in order to
preserve our air quality, clean water, economic stability, food
production and irreplaceable natural beauties and wonders?
24
"Thank you for your time."
And thank you.
2-19
11
71
72
I MR. DRIEAR: Tom Breitbach.
MR. BREITBACH: I will furnish a copy afterwards.
My name is Tom Breitbach, and I live and make a Liv-
ing fourteen miles northwest of Circle, Montana.
As a member of the McCone Agricultural Protection
'■ ,| Organization, I have been involved in studying the industrial
development of coal since BN proposed the synfuels project in
•> i Western McCone County. Since the air quality information has
1 just been released and not everyone has received a copy, much
I" l^ss had time to study it, I would ask that the public comment
Ji | period on the EIS be extended for thirty days,
i- || MAPCO has requested throughout the leasing process
ii I that impacts to off-site agriculture be studied and inventoried
14 II BLM has continually assured us that these off-site impacts
15 j would be addressed, and we have now progressed to the
Environmental Impact Statement, and these off-site impai
have not been analyzed.
The costs of these impacts to agriculture have yet to
!..
red.
73
There is absolutely no need for additional federal
coal leasing. There are already nearly 20,000,000,000 tons of
leased federal coal most of which Ls not being developed. Coal
mines which are in operation have reduced their production due
to reduced demand. Of the thirteen tracts offered for lease
in the last coal lease sale only two tracts received more than
12
i
one bid, two received none at all, and that whole lease sale is
-
presently under investigation by both Congress and the courts.
1
Meanwhile, the Department of Interior has relaxed
i its diligent development requirements in order to prevent
existing leases from being cancelled due to past over leasing
and lack of demand. The one coal-fired generator still being
> planned for this state has been postponed at least until the
73
• | mid-1990' s. The nuclear generation plants under construction
in the Pacific Northwest are being molhbal led and utility
i" ! customers must pay large rate increases for this mothballing.
"
Over thirty percent of the crude oil drilling rigs
„
are setting idle. The inner-mountain power project planned
i:i
for Utah is going to be cut in half because the power isn't
,.
There is no need for additional coal leasing beyond
i'.
leasing maintenance tracts to keep existing mines in produc-
IT
tion. If BLM holds a lease sale, it will probably be a bigger
L»
failure than the Powder River lease sale just held.
ji.
Your studies are very inconsistent regarding the
population forecast. For instance, for alternative No 3,
74
-"
which includes the Circle West tract, the Draft EtS forecasts
an increase for Circle of 275 people. The Air Quality Informa-
tion Supplement forecasts an increase for McCone County of 53
J4
people and the SSA for Circle West 2 forecasts an increase of
2,000 people.
HORTMANOREPORT.NO
13
i
BLM continually stresses five factors which are
necessary to mitigate some of the adverse economic or social
impacts. One of these is accurate information. Only one of
<
the forecasts, 53, 275 or 2,000, should be used for the analy-
sis. Which one is right? And where is the forecast for popu-
»
lation increases due to the proposed BN-BLM swap?
74
At the BLM meeting in Circle on August 31st I asked
some very specific questions concerning the population and
■ impacts to Circle in the event of the construction of
'"
two synfuel plants. Although the economist was absent, I was
12
10
|i.
assured my questions would be answered. Not having received
any response by September 18th, I traveled to Miles City to
speak with BLM personnel and was referred to Loren Cabe in
Billings, who promised to check on the fiscal data before this
l waiting for that information, and since I
have not been corrected or called a liar I must assume that my
calculations for the impacts on Circle are correct.
,»
Tonight I was handed that reply.
75
1
If the proposed coal lease swap between Meridian
Land and Mineral Company and the BLM goes through two synfuel
plants will be constructed in McCone County. This EIS does not
include facts and figures relating to two 85,000-barrel synfuel
plants in Circle West. Were those social and fiscal Lmpa
ton ^rcat to even be included?
Because this information was omitted, I used the
RAUCH SHORTHAND REPORTS
14
.
information for alternative 6, as it was very similar in size
and number of facilities. This alternative shows Circle jump-
:i
ing from a base population of 1,000 to a peak population of
*
9,000. At the same time I estimated that there would be a
75
in
fiscal deficient of over $22,000,000 for the period of 1987
through 2000.
It's hard to believe that the regional coal team
could possibly recommend a lease and swap which would result in
this degree of social and fiscal impact. In an attempt to miti
^atc these rather large impacts, we would appreciate it it the
coal team would consider requiring that leasees provide front-
\2
end monies.
13
Thank you.
14
15
in
MR. DRIEAR: For those of you that have written
statements with you this evening we would appreciate it if you
could leave them up here on the front table for us.
Greg Veit.
MR. VEIT: My name is Greg Veit. I am Vice-President
of the Golden Valley Resource Council.
76
"'
I wish to make a statement concerning air pollution
resulting from the Government's leasing of coal to be used in
energy plants. This is of interest to the Golden Valley
Resource Council because the proposed Tenneco coal gasification
plant is adjacent to our county. Excuse me.
Use of coal to produce energy is the dirtiest method
RftUCH SHORTHANO REPORTING
2-20
76
15,
now employed. Its ultimate toxicity has yet to be determined, i
The BLH itself has damned the use of coal not by any expressed j
opinion but by the facts their researchers have gathered in
producing their environmental impact statements.
Congress sometime ago enacted a Clean Air Act and is
now considering an equally good one which is intended to protec
the people of the United States from the dangers of air pollu-
tion. By leasing coal at its preferred alternative the BLM
is planning for and encouraging additional coal conversion
plants which will break the air standards set by Congress.
Expecting to get all the coal they need, three coal conversion
companies are currently seeking waivers which undermine the
Clean Air Act, creating a situation in which a Government
agency, the BLM, is planning development which will oppose the
will of Congress. Excuse me.
Proof of this is found in the Air Quality Supplement
recently mailed out by the BLM. There we will find that for
all six alternative leasing schedules the BLM studies show that
the amount of sulfur dioxide in the air would exceed Class I
standards. Total suspended particulates will exceed the annual
maximum level allowed anywhere in North Dakota and Montana.
There are no visibility standards but the thresholds
established by BLM would be exceeded in both units of the
Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
There are also grave potential hazards the extent of
16
which are now unknown in the areas of organic compounds, trace
metals, acid rain, radioactive elements and the effect of
"7/"
emissions on weather and climates. A BLM spokes — excuse me.
76
1
A BLM spokesman has said that leasing will take place regard-
less of the findings. In view of these dangers, it is hoped
"
that only enough coal will be leased to supply the needs of
_7
present plants and those under construction.
13
A second area of concern to us in Golden Valley
County is the economic impact of development of the South
Wibaux-Beach tract. The impact statement underestimates the
severity and duration of disruption to the community of Beach
and the surrounding area should development occur.
In particular, we take exception to the projections
of fiscal revenues as portrayed on Page A-18 of the statement.
The graph projects an initial deficit, then a 1 ,000,000-per-
77
»■
year surplus beginning in 1992. Information that we have recei
nd
"
from the Tenneco Company, from the North Dakota Legislative
w
Council and from the North Dakota Energy Impact Office contra-
19
dLctb the findings of the BI.M.
■u
At the August 2, 1982 Legislative Task Force meeting
-1
in Beach, the Tenneco representative said, and I quote from the
minutes of that meeting, "It is likely that mining would not
Lake place in North Dakota for about twenty years," unquote.
«
A study by the Energy Impact Office states as long as the coal
is mined only in Montana the communities will not receive coal
17
I
severance taxes, cannot borrow from the Coal Trust Fund and
cannot receive assistance from the Coal Impact Fund. This
■<
leaves Beach with mitigation money from only two sources--
'
front-end money from Tenneco and property taxes.
The fact is Tenneco has not pledged any mitigation
77
•■
funds nor have they ever given front-end money to any communi-
i f
ties anywhere. This means that Beach is left with property
taxes alone to pay for improved school facilities, additional
'
teachers, new water and sewer facilities, improvements to
in
county roads and city streets, maintenance equipment, community
»
facilities, recreational facilities and equipment. It is
i a
inconceivable that Beach will have a 1 ,000,000-per-year sur-
J?
plus within three years of construction startup.
»
Any reasonable accounting of the costs and benefits
ir.
of development of the South Wibaux tract must conclude that the
,«
formidable impacts are not justified by the strip mining to
»
produce high-priced synthetic gas.
,»
Thank you.
!!>
MR. DRIEAR: Ms. Bud Stevenson.
20
2\
MS. STEVENSON: I am Ms. Bud Stevenson, and I repre-
sent Bud and Doris Stevenson and the interests of my late
parents, Charles and Viola Lease, all of Intake. Montana.
I would like to go on record as opposing further
development of coal in Eastern Montana at least until there is
found to be a need for it, not just to benefit big business and
78
79
the coal industries and for money of exporting it. We in
Eastern Montana and the Dakotas have a way of life all our own
hard though it may be. Our per capita output of foodstuff is
great. We produce the best wheat in the world plus other
grain, sugar beets, cattle, hogs, sheep and many other things.
Why should we permit the coal industry to take this and our
clean air and our environment away from us?
There are many people outside of our community as
well as in who consume our fine food products and benefit from
it. The coal industry desires the prime farm land. The bette
the land the better they say. They claim to reclaim it by
leveling it. At best that's not reclaiming. We have only
about six inches of topsoil and very little water. It's not
possible to get that six inches of topsoil back on Lop. True.
they may get it to grow weeds, but who wants to eat weeds? We
tried it in the dirty Thirties. Remember? It was endorsed
by our Government. The home demonstration agent came into our
home and showed us how to cook Russian thistles and to build
furniture out of orange crates. Neither one were any good.
After development giving jobs to our people? Not so,
Others will be brought in along with scores of problems for us
to solve with taxpayer money. We have seen the problems the
oil industry brought to Richland County. The coal industry is
much dirtier and in more ways than one.
Think about these few things. Our land will be
2-21
19
20
destroyed. Our water will be ruined or destroyed. Our air
will be polluted. Our social problems will be multiplied.
Our way of life will be gone. There will be acid rain. There
ill be wildlife destruction and many more. Weigh all of this
against a little money for a few. We don't need a lot of coal
development. Let them finish up Appalachia and Indiana. Let
them leave Montana alone. You can't forever keep taking land
out of production and still expect to eat and to feed the
world. You like to eat. What about your children and your
children's children? We have a responsibility in that way, tool
Thank you.
MR. DRIEAR: Charles Yarger.
MR. YARGER: For the record, my name is Charlie
Yarger. I farm and ranch about fifteen miles west of Circle
ith my wife and my family and my parents in that area that we
have all-- just about in the middle of that area we have all
e to know and love as the Fort Union coal deposit. I would
hate to count up the number of times that I have been to hear-
ings, informational meetings, briefings and consultations con-
ning the Redwater MFP or the Fort Union EIS over the past
eral years. If I ever did I would probably ask myself what
in the hell are you doing here again, Yarger?
I can spend one and a half hours reiterating all of
my former testimony pointing out all of the inadequacies of
your studies, the double standards you operate under, your
failure to respond to legitimate landowner concerns and all of
your own rules and regulations that you have chosen to ignore.
I could take all of my allotted time and say nothing but I told
you so, but because this is the last opportunity we have to
ment on the EIS there are a few more points that I would
like to make. Don't get me wrong. I don't have any illusion
that anything I say will make the slightest bit of difference
to your boss on the Potomac. That is unless, of course, the
Fort Union Regional Coal Team, citizens and the state govern-
ments of this area have the courage to say, Mr. Watt, we have
had enough. What we say won't matter unless we expose the
Fort Union EIS, the coal lease targets, the federal coal pro-
m, the new rule changes for what they really are.
The Secretary of Interior has sold us out and he
makes no bones about it. The Secretary would do away with land
er rights. He would do away with due diligence. He would
do away with the Fort Union Regional Coal Team and the rights
of state government to have any decision in the development of
:he natural resources within our boundaries, and this is the
federalism that we are all supposed to be so in awe of.
e example of managing the public's resources keeping in mind
course, multiple use and sustained yield.
On the 6th of May I testified before the Fort Union
Regional Coal Team in Miles City and warned of the possibility
:>ver-leasing and the subsequent speculation that might occur
1
1
I stated that if you made a logical reasonably-sized lease sale
recommendation it would probably be ignored, and it was.
:<
In October I once again testified stating the need
4
for federal coal leasing was less now than it was in May. I
also warned about the proposed changes in the coal program that
(i
would virtually eliminate the regional coal team. Since that
:
time the Department of Interior has adopted new regulations
H
which keep the regional coal teams from having any voice in
;i
the future coal lease sales which, of course, thereby elimi-
id
nates the states.
n
Furthermore, the Department has adopted a new policj
that will lease coal on the basis of what industry wants for
reserves rather than how much is necessary to meet true energy
14
IS
needs.
In the beginning of the Fort Union EIS you discussed
scoping. All of those areas of concern that need to be
addressed--air quality, water quality, affect the t...
in
wastes on ground water, agriculture, utility corridors, impact
of communities, inflation, lifestyle changes--they have all bee
at least addressed or mentioned in general terms, but there are
no conclusive results from any in-depth studies, nothing that
can be proven. It's mentioned in scoping and for the most part
that's as far as it goes.
The Fort Union EIS studied six different alternatives
from alternative number one, leasing for maintenance tracts, to
22
alternative number six, leasing virtually every available ton
of federal coal in the Fort Union coal in the Fort Union coal
deposit. Considering our ability to correctly predict the ac-
tions of the Secretary of Interior up to this point, I fail to
see why we even bother studying any other alternative than
number six. He will, more than likely, recommend five to six
synfuels plants and two to four power plants for Dawson,
Wibaux and McCone Counties.
The Federal Coal Management Program, which regulates
how federal coal is to be leased, has four primary goals for
the Department taken from the abstract, Page 3-2, number one,
quote, "Employ land use planning and effective enforcement of
environmental Uiws to insure that federal coal is committed to
production and produced in an environmentally-acceptable mannei
which is responsible to local communities and landowners
affected by coal development," end quote. I fail to see how
leasing a billion tons of coal and devastating local communi-
ties and landowners can be misconstrued as being responsible.
Number two, quote, "Assure that sufficient quantities
are leased to meet energy needs," end quote. We have to hand i
to the Secretary that time, because he certainly did meet that
goal unless, of course, you take into consideration the fact
there is no proven need to lease any more federal coal.
And, number three, "Assure that federal coal is pro-
duced in an economically efficient manner with a fair, economy
2-22
23
.
cal return to the United States for all the coal produced,"
end quote. Consider the Powder lease, the Powder River lease
:'
sale held last spring. Two of the tracts didn't even receive
■t
bids and most of the others received only one bid. The
Secretary gave away millions of dollars of the public's
'■
resources to the coal speculators, a fact so obvious that the
w
lease sale is being challenged in court and in Congress right
A result of the Fort Union coal lease sale will be
even worse because many of the companies who had previously
11
expressed interest in the Fort Union no longer plan on sub-
j:t
mitting bids.
And tht; fourth point, "Emphasize consultation and
cooperation with state governments in planning, leasing and
15
development of federal coal," end quote. Considering what I
16
have already stated about the role of state government and the
regional coal team, I would like to read part of a letter
20
21
written to the Secretary of Interior on August 30, 1982, by
Covemor Ed Herschler of Wyoming and signed by all the western
governors.
The letter stated, "Dear Secretary Watt: On behalf
of the under-signed governors of the major public-land states,
I am writing to express our collective concern that our best
efforts to foster the spirit of your new federalism in the area
of federal coal leasing, efforts that have produced the first
80
successful coal leasing in a decade, are now faltering under
the changed policies and regulations of the Department of
Interior. The effect of these changes is to once again
centralize on the Potomac critical decisions affecting western
states, decisions that should be made in the region. The
final regulations governing federal coal leasing that were
published by the Interior Department on July 30th have reduced
the role of states in the federal coal leasing decisions.
Specifically the regulations eviscerate the most vital organs
for state-federal cooperation, the regional coal teams. The
reduced role of the regional coal teams and thus the states'
is directly contrary to the intent of that Department as
stated in the proposed regulations, quote. 'The changes would
not significantly alter the role of the regional coal teams.'"
I would like to commend the governors for defending
the rights of the states and their citizens. It seems obvious
aftar using such strong language that they will continue to
pursue the matter and do everything in their power to see that
the Secretary of Interior can no longer run roughshod over the
western states.
My one concern with the Fort Union EIS and the pro-
posed June, 1981, lease sale is that there is no need to lease.
If it is leased it will bt for speculative reasons only.
Throughout the country plans for synthetic fuels plants, power
plants and nuclear plants are being dropped and--or indefinite!
80
2%
postponed. The Y (sic) Coal Plant in Wyoming, the Antelope
Valley Station in North Dakota and the infamous Whoops (sic)
Nuclear Plants in the Pacific Northwest are all examples.
Montana mines are operating at sixty percent of capacity. Two
Montana mines are now in court with their utility customers
who want out of their coal contracts. Westmoreland and Peabody
Mines are operating at half capacity.
Last Sunday's Billings Gazette carried an article
about Gillette, Wyoming's Hampshire Project, stating the syn-
fuels project was not needed. It went on to say if it were t
be built it would lay off workers in Wyoming and in Billings
and the Denver refiners. Why? Because there is no demand.
There is no demand.
The Midwest Power Pool, which is the predominant
market for Fort Union coal, currently has 8,000 megawatts of
over-production. That is one-third of their total generating
capacity. The coal market is declining weekly. In virtually
every trade press publication or newspaper one can read we
hear of the soft coal market. That's now for the next ten
years or for the foreseeable future.
In McCone County no one has even filed a long-range
plan. The only possible development in the foreseeable futur<
Id be if the Burlington Northern-BLM mineral swap, land
p, fiasco were to take place, and so I ask you if there is
demand why lease the coal? There can only be one answer.
2f
Speculation.
The multi-national energy corporations of this
country want the Department of Interior to give them hundreds
and millions of dollars worth of the public's resources. It
certainly appears that the energy companies have a way of get-
'•
ting exactly what they want from the, current administration.
Over-leasing and the subsequent speculative abuse
„
by energy companies is not new. In early 1982 Pacific Gas and
Electric sold their federal leases to Utah, in Utah, to Sun Oil
80
»
for $20,000 an acre. These leases were originally obtained
11
from the Government in the nineceen-sixties for $3.70 per acre.
12
Last year Peabody Coal sold their federal leases to Shell Oil
l :
for $17,000 an acre. Peabody bought these leases in 1966 from
1 l
the Government for $3 an acre. This squandering of the public'
1".
I (J
resources in the past is sad, but to do it again on such a gran
scale as in the Powder River lease sale and the Fort Union
lease sale would be a national disgrace at a time when unemploy
ment is at ten percent, the country is on the brink of a
depression and the people need something to look forward to.
It is incomprehensible to me for the Secretary of Interior to
give away forever the public's right to a fair return for their
1
resources.
,,,
Gentlemen, the Teapot Dome scandal pales in compari-
LM
son.
Thank you.
2-23
11
.
MR. DRIEAR: After hearing several of the last com-
2
ments, I think I would like to say at this point that while I
*
am sure many of you have comments on the new federalism and
4
the speculative nature of leasing programs I would ask that you
please limit your comments to the Draft Environmental Impact
••
Statement that we are considering this evening.
-,
Ms. Solvejg Howard.
"
MS. HOWARD: I am Solvejg Nelson Howard. I am the
»
daughter of a person who came from St. Paul, a woman, and took
IU
out a homestead in Golden Valley County, and I own that land,
n
I am very proud of it and I dislike having it in jeopardy this
way.
I make only three points on this and I will give you
14
15
some written material, too. First of all, I question the whole
series of documents I have gotten and their use of evidence.
There seem to me to be far too many assumptions and there is no
81
u
bases shown for these assumptions. Authorities seem to be
mentioned but there is no mention of the exact authorities,
which authorities and on whose authority are many of the
_■■■
assumptions and assertions made.
21
I think, going on to another point, that agriculture
is probably more important than coal in our future, certainly
24
in the immediate future. I think farmers are more important
than coal persons. I think the farmers are going to feed us in
this country and the rest of the world and that this is what
MUCH SHORTHAND REPORTING
82
2E
rgy and
stop
most futurists see. We have alternative sources
I hope that we will use them.
I will stop right here because I would
otherwise. Thank you.
MB. DRIEAR: Marty Holmes.
MR. HOLMES: Good evening. My name is Marty Holmes.
I represent Meridian Land and Mineral Company in Billings,
Montana. I am currently the project supervisor for the pro-
posed Meridian coal exchange in the Circle West area of McCone
County. My first comment regarding the Fort Union Regional
Coal Draft EIS is one to clarify and restate Meridian's per-
ception of coal development in the Circle West area.
Earlier this year we supplied BLM with a development
scenario for Circle West which we felt was the only alternative
over which Meridian would have direct control should develop-
ment occur. The alternative we supplied was a plant facility
to manufacture 2,500 tons or 18,000 barrels per day of methanol
This number was based on the possibility that our sister sub-
sidiary, Burlington Northern Railroad, might convert some
diesel locomotives to methanol and represents the maximum
quantity necessary for such a demand. As the market stands
, a plant of this type will not be built. The current
lomics are unfavorable but should the fuel situation deter-
ute again in the future, as it has in the past, the
lomics might change and make methanol conversion a viable
29
■
plan.
Any other scenario in the EIS document relating to
Circle West, including the generic 85,000-barrels-per-day syn-
1
fuel facilities, are hypothetical for the purpose of BLM's
oo
assessment, and they stated that in the document. We do not
82
see development of this magnitude as that most likely to occur.
and it is hoped the public would keep that in mind when review-
ing this discussion and associated impacts. Given the lack of
"
formal plans and with lengthy permitting requirements, coal
'"
mines and conversion facilities probably will not be under
1 1
construction at Circle West in 1987 as Table 1-11 In the EIS
■
shows.
15
Id
We commend BLM for its attempt to discuss possible
impacts of the leasing program in the Fort Union Region as
currently contemplated. It certainly was no easy task,
particularly when you consider that it is not really the impact
83
i;
of leasing that the regional document assesses but rather the
impact of possible development which might occur in the future
as a result of this leasing action. Given the uncertain future
market of lignite coal and the poor condition of current market
it is unlikely that the number of tracts and levels of produc-
tion comprising the various leasing alternatives studied in the
document will materialize within the predicted time frames.
Also, we hope that the public understands that , with-
in time frames predicted, it is unlikely that corresponding
M*.l*a.»Mi
1C
impacts will actually be generated and that the larger the
leasing alternative the greater the overstatement of produc-
tion and resulting impacts is likely to be.
1
I should add that we encourage leasing levels large
enough to promote competition between reserve holders to ensure
reasonable prices to the consumers. -Again, this lessens the
direct relationship between leasing levels and expected produc-
QQ
We strongly suggest that the BLM take a hard look at
OJ
'"
the projections for coal mining in the region and determine the
11
most realistic level of production for selected time frames.
13
This should he followed by an estimate of the level of Inpacts
a
associated with that production. The Final EIS could use this
14
li.
17
as a basis for comparison when discussing possible production
levels from the various alternatives. This arranaernent would
clearly put impact levels for the full level of production for
each alternative in perspective to what the BLM really thinks
is going to happen. Everyone reading the document would have a
much better idea of what the real impact of the Government
20
actions are likely to be.
21
On behalf of Meridian, I'd like to thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the EIS. We hope BLM will consider
a
our comments. We feel the proper perspective is missing in the
J4
document when comparing realistic versus hypothetical coal
development. However, BLM has done the best possible job of
2-24
31
.
addressing impacts for the production levels chosen, especially
-'
when site-specific plans for most of the tracts in the region
:t
are nonexistent.
*
And I would just like to say once again that I know
there has been quite a bit of controversy over the coal ex-
ti
change. We feel that the time is right for the kind of ex-
7
change that we have proposed, but we do not, as Mr. Bresler
^
(sic) said, I think it was quoted in the Miles City Star here
-
about two weeks ago. if the exchange goes through it does not
in
necessarily mean we are actively pursuing development in the
11
is
Circle West area, and it--we don't even see at this time— it
certainly will not be the magnitude that is discussed in the
document.
U
Thank you.
IS
IB
17
MR. DRIEAR: Nell Kubesh.
MS. KUBESii: I am Nell Kubesh. and I have helped my
husband, John, farm for the last thirty-six years. We are
concerned about the effects of large strip mines and synfuels
on our farm, our community and our whole area. First I want
2\
to say that I appreciate your efforts to find out more about
the effects of synfuel plants on air quality and publishing the
air quality supplement. However, I find a great deal of data
needed to assess damages from synfuel plants are unknown.
■n
estimated from poor baseline information or contradictory, as
is acknowledged in your modeling studies.
84
32
On Page S-16, modeling of cumulative twenty-four-
hour concentration, it states that state standards in both
Montana and North Dakota as well as the federal secondary
standard are exceeded in all cases. Yet on Page S-27 it scat*
that allowable Class II increments are generally not expected
to be exceeded.
Also, on Page S-36 it says based on current knowledge
there can be little doubt that emissions of sulfur dioxide and
nitric dioxide by-product sources will contribute acidity to
atmospheric deposition, and, on Page S-J7, due to the signifi-
cant size of gasification and liquefaction facilities this is
an area of potential concern and should be more Gritlca] Ly
evaluated as more studies are completed and as specific coal
conversion projects are proposed.
Yet on Page S-M after conceding that more informa-
tion necessary to quantify the effects of air pollution on wate
quality is not presently available, the conclusion was on Page
S-41 that indirect effects on water quality resulting from air
pollution will likely be insignificant.
The study of trace elements in coal from North Dakota
is revealing only in that one year discharges will not cause
adverse effects on ecosystems in a one-year span, but on con-
clusions were reached for longer-term effects. Is it not
reasonable to expect a cumulative effect from the long list of
toxic elements? The effects of lead, mercury, arsenic, the
<3
i
many varieties of uranium and radionuclides are all known to
be toxic or carcinogenic to all living creatures and are not to
•
be lightly dismissed.
1
Acid rain is becoming more and more a national con-
cern. With more than 140 fishless lakes in Ontario and more
■■
than 100 in Northern New York, 150,000 in Sweden being deter-
;
mined to have been caused by acid rain, it should be a prime
»
concern in this area. With the disappearance of fish in this
-
area we could lose a most lucrative tourist industry. While
in
soils in this area tend to be alkaline and will tolerate or
84
ii
IS
even benefit from a small amount of acid rain, there is no
consensus or even an estimate of where the danger line is.
Your study has developed a good basis to work from
but also raises a great many more questions. While Radon 222
and 220 were studied and were found to be dispersed by at least
ll<
17
half what happens to the many other uranium compounds which
were found? And then there was the question about the Radon
.
component being transferred to the end product of synthetic
natural gas. Would it be transferred then to home gas stoves
and furnaces?
So my conclusion is that there is not nearly enough
hard data to justify any of the leasing alternatives except
number one. The whole area of synfuel development is still
experimental at this stage of size and scope. Don't you think
that the pell-mell energy search should have learned something
d*UCM SHORTHAND HEPOOT.NG
84
85
86
87p
34
the
. I.
boom and bust? We are learning, slowly
perhaps, that Government does not do what is best for ordinary
citizens. After Government refusal to be responsible for
deaths in Utah from nuclear testing, can we expect more? Are
we, in this area, also designated to be guinea pigs to find oul
the answers to the questions left unanswered? The irony of the
whole matter is that a new source of energy is not needed now
or in the near future. Oil companies are worried about subsi-
dized competition in a slow market and coal companies are min-
ing more coal than they can market. The American public also
will be the loser if the public coal is put up for lease at
this time at giveaway prices, and, finally, I am requesting a
thirty-day extension for additional comments.
MR. DRIEAR: Irene Moffett.
MS. MOFFETT: I am Irene Moffett. can you hear me,
and I live on a ranch thirty miles southwest of Glendive.
In the economic section of this EIS draft on agri-
culture taking just the farming profit of each year for a
leasee or farmer operation as the only loss is not correct. A
farmer buys his machinery to match his acreage. When he loses
some of this acreage due to coal mining he still has to pay fo
the machinery. Thereby he has this loss as well as his profit
loss.
This EIS draft says there will be good reclamation o
land. Since no land has ever been released from bonding as
2-25
35
i
reclaimed
in the State of Montana, I really don't see how you
r,
can put i
n such a statement.
So far no one has ever tried reclamation of crop land
4
in this s
tate. One of the hardest things for reclamation is
getting a
good cover crop. With that as a problem, how are you
going to
start a crop each year?
Last summer in the Fort Union Coal Region in North
"
Dakota a
noal mining company was proven to be not saving even
"
the topso
l! to use in reclamation. Yet you state as a fact
'"
that ther
; will be separate removal, storage and respreading of
»
these soi
s and the land will be put back together for farming
Q"7
'-
and ranch
mg in just a few years. What do you base this on
O /
when ther
; is proof that it isn't being done in this very area?
14
1G
21
"Short-te
presently
tion from
term agrit
This is nc
go by?
do with ct
you increa
In your conclusion the first paragraph states, quote,
"m disturbance would somewhat exceed that acreage
left bare due to summerfallow. Preliminary indica-
cotnpleted and ongoing research are that in the long
ultural productivity of mined land can be restored."
t very accurate if you go by what has happened to
land in the past and what else do we or you have to
In the above paragraph what does summerfallow have to
al mining? You keep referring to summerfal lowing as
xample of land not being used. When you summerfal low
se the amount of grain or food energy in the crop
RAUCM SKOHTHAfiO BEPOBT1NG
87 L;
88
89[
90
year. In mining you just dec
is in the shortest supply on ,
I also have a short
>ta
e food energy, the ener
rldwide basis.
t from Willie Day.
"I feel that leasing the coal will also commit an
amount of water to process this coal. There are pending at
this time claims for a large amount of water in Montana.
Filings under the Montana water adjudication law.
"I will submit in writing at a later date the facts
and figures on this issue."
MR. DRIEAR: Leida Hubing.
MS. HUBING: I am Leida Hubing. My family owns land
within and immediately adjacent to this proposed Burns Creek
Tract. First of all, I, too, would like to request a thirty-
day extension on this written comment period.
At previous meetings and hearings on the need for nei
coal leasing in the Fort Union area the public has repeatedly
testified that there is no need for this leasing. I feel that
this still holds true. I have never seen any studies proving
that this coal is needed.
Presently there are almost 20,000,000,000 tons of
coal under lease. Most of this coal is undeveloped because
re is no demand. This amount of coal would see us down the
road fifteen to twenty years even if the demand should increase
it's very unlikely that the demand for coal will increase
because there are many reasons for this.
37
A few of these are, first, consumers are cutting back
on their use of electricity and will probably be cutting back
more and more as the electricity cost rises.
Two, more and more people are making use of renewable
energy sources such as solar, wind and water power.
90
•
Three, there are many more natural gas reserves and
there is more gas in those reserves than the Department of
Energy originally forecasted due to new technology. This new
technology will make this expensive synfuel process obsolete
in
1 1
in the future.
Now, speaking of expenses, we should remember that
these powerful synfuel plants, expensive as they are, will be
subsidized by our tax dollars. Yet Secretary Watt insists that
1 1
this costly development Is necessary.
i ■
As previously stated, we ranch within this Burns
16
Creek Tract. If this development should come to pass and the
facility on Burns Creek is placed where it's mapped, it must be
remembered that while the Bureau of Land Management will
91
r'
graciously allow us as landowners our two-bit compensation
*.
people adjacent to this area or any other area for development,
'
slated for development, will suffer severe negative impacts and
receive no compensation at all. How severe these impacts will
--
actually be is unknown, and that is one of the biggest faults
■'
of the Fort Union Environmental Impact Statement.
92
The Bureau of Land Management has not discussed
"»">»»»»" »°«~»™
38
92
i_<
potential impacts of acid rain, toxic wastes, air pollution or
water quality degradation. Planners promised to address the
off-site impacts to farmers and ranchers in their first
93
Redwater management framework plan. Such an analysis was
absent there, and it has been absent from all other publica-
tions which promised to address this issue. We are still
waiting for this information.
Thank you.
MR. DRIEAR: Helen Waller.
IU
MS. WALLER: My name is Helen Waller. I have a few
11
general comments to make.
,:,
First, I believe it would be helpful if the author of
the various sections was identified. The reference in the back
simply states the names or the firms which have been involved
94
1 ■
but makes no attempt to identify which sections were contracted
out to whom or which data was generated internally. I think
it would be extremely helpful to know who is really responsible
JN
for which portions of the study.
"
Second, I received the air quality supplement nine
95
»
days ago. I have not had a chance to--to even skim the thing
,M
and because of its delay I would ask that the comment period be
extended an additional thirty days.
And, third, nowhere in the document is the BN-BLM
96
»
swap, third alternative, addressed. An environmental assess-
ment of that alternative is necessary.
MUCH SHORTHAND REPORTS
2-26
39
]
My husband, Gordy, and I farm and ranch between the
-
Circle West and the Redwater tracts. We have known since 1975
>
that our farm, along with a multitude of others in the HcCone,
1
Dawson, Richland and Wibaux Counties in Montana and Golden
Valley County, North Dakota, was included in a land use plan
"
being prepaned by the BLM whose activities would ultimately
bring us through a series of studies and documents leading up
,
to this EIS and on to a scheduled coal lease sale in June of
■■•
1983.
10
This document is the fulfillment of my every expecta-
11
13
tion. The quality of workmanship is consistent with previous
publications. It conservatively predicts probable community
tragedy with the usual candor and draws conclusions firmly
14
founded on documented unknowns.
«
Throughout the planning process, issues critical to
11!
17
the viability of farms and ranches outside the lease tracts
have been raised with the BLM, and they promised to analyze the
97
Itj
.'1
impacts of leasing on agriculture in the Fort Union Region.
For the record, I am attaching a copy of correspondence- with
the then Secretary of Interior, Frank Gregg, and also corre-
spondence that I had with Loren Cabe, who is an economist for
the BLM in the state office in Billings.
These promises were made, but in March of 1981 BLM
called me to a meeting in Miles City to inform me that they
didn't have the time or the money to address the problem of
RAUCM SHORTHAND «FO*nN6
40
.
what would likely happen to farm and ranch operations outside
the lease tracts. Their studies would be confined to impacts
>
on the farms and ranches immediately over the tracts. Now, if
*
they would confine their damage, such as air pollution, ground-
water disruption, invading weed seeds, population increase and
„
toxic wastes to the lease tract, I could accept that scope of
Q7
study, but I doubt that that will be the case.
Z7 /
Despite the fact that the Federal Lands Policy and
»
Management Act requires land-use plans to be prepared on a
.«
multiple-use, sustained-yield concept, and despite the fact
11
12
la
that the Federal Coal Program requires consideration for lands
which produce food and fiber and even though the Federal Coal
Program also requires an assessment of the effects of leasing
on adjacent, non-federal lands, the BLM has chosen not to do so
15
Instead, they are satisfied to plead unknown.
98
"" ic
It's kind of like taking the Fifth Amendment. Conse-
quently, most of the important questions about the impacts to
agriculture are not answered in this EIS. Questions like how
far from the mines will ground-water be degraded or lost and in
what direction? What are the results of reclamation efforts in
the Fort Union? Can crop land be reclaimed to original pro-
ductivity? What will be the impacts of transmission line, pipe
line and railroad rights-of-way on ranch operations? What will
be the effect of air pollution on crop yield? What will be the
effects of toxic waste disposal on water quality? How much
M
.
land will go for synfuels plants, new county and city buildings
98
*
and trailer parks? What costs must taxpayers bear before the
facility comes on line to ease the burden? These questions are
not answered in the EIS. Instead the EIS concludes that there
are too many unknowns to evaluate how off-site impact might
_«
affect farm-ranch operations and cost.
The EIS is full of unknowns.
»
Acid rain. The EIS contains only a very general dis-
cussion of acid rain. It doesn't even attempt to say whether
or not acid rain will be a problem in the region or downwind
99
ii
in the agricultural breadbasket of the country. The EIS says
12
i ■
that acid rain will probably increase but, and I quote, "whethe
the increase will be significant and where it may show up can-
14
not be predicted." Really, that's anybody's guess.
15
On the subject of toxic wastes, the EIS does not
1«
analyze the effects of toxic wastes from synfuels plants on
agriculture or the general population. Although it describes
100
„
some possible pollutants, which are dangerous, and many are
cancer-causing, at very low levels, the EIS gives no indication
of what or how much pollutants will come out of synfuels plants
The BLM doesn't know. They simply defer to the EPA who has
_"
presently set no standards, has no plans or budget to do so.
""'
On health effects of synfuels plants, they say, and I
101
24
quote, "Any increased health costs associated with breathing
conversion plant emissions are not well documented but could be
«*UC»SHOBTH*NOnEPO-.T,N(:
42
101
_,
significant."
102
„
Solid waste, and I quote, "It is still unclear
exactly what solid wastes a gasification plant will produce."
*
Air pollution impacts on water quality, and I quote
103
:.
again, "The information necessary to quantify the effects of
"
air pollution on water quality in the Fort Union Coal Region
is not presently available."
104
»
Ground -water. "It is impossible to predict
accurately how far away from a mined area degraded water will
11
12
Trace elements. The only study going on of trace
elements from coal-fired power plants in North Dakota showed
105
1.!
no effects during the first year, but no conclusions could be
reached regarding the long-term effects of arsenic, beryllium,
If-
mercury and others.
106
11!
Other unknowns include the fiscal impacts on county
government which would include school budgets. BLM only
J"
figured the impacts to city budgets.
...
On the major questions concerning the survival of the
agricultural industry in the Fort Union Region, the only thing
107
we know for sure from this EIS is that if leasing takes place
the degree of environmental impacts to agricultural operators
outside the lease tracts is unknown.
108
~«
This document fails to meet its required purpose as
*
set forth in the NEPA requirements. Section 1500. IB provides,
2-27
41
■
and I quote, "NEPA procedures must insure that environmental
-
information is available to public officials and citizens
*
before actions are taken," and it also states, "The information
108
*
must be of high quality."
1 \J\J
They make no--no allowance for this unknown bit.
'•
And further in Section 102 of the act, and I quote,
"Each agency shall identify environmental effects and values in
H
adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and techni-
_j!
cal analysis."
10
11
I a
13
I believe this document fails to do so.
Meanwhile other significant and pertinent actions are
taking place. The Powder River lease sale of last April is
being challenged as well as Secretary Watt's revision of
14
various rules and regulations applying to the Federal Leasing
15
Law, the Strip Mine Reclamation Act, the Land Use Planning Law
16
and the National Environmental Policy Act.
As evidenced by the actions of Secretary Watt, there
19
appears to be one overriding ambition, and that is to deliver
the valuable public coal resource into the hands of the energy
industry even though the coal market is depressed, knowing full
well that markets are not available for potential coal produc-
»
tion from existing mines. For the past couple of years,
.4
Montana and Wyoming mines have been operating at about sixty
percent capacity with some utilities unable to meet even mini-
Tium contractual agreements.
OAuCH SHORTHAND HEPOOTIHli
ady
109
prudent
diligeni
vided ii
Sixteen billion tons of federal coal a
ase, much of it not likely to meet due diligence
ents. This must be an embarrassment to an administra
ch is hard pressed to find justification for the
iver and the Fort Union lease sales.
I contend that in the public interest it is not
to issue new leases to companies who have not been
in developing commercial quantities of coal as pro-
present law. Neither should Congress relax diligenc
nction speculation and
it in the public inter
ale which effectively e
requirements. That would only
encourage further abuses. Nor
offer a multitude of tracts for
nates competitive bidding.
If Interior is successful in delivering to energy
companies the public's coal reserves on a depressed market
without effective due diligence requirements, I believe will be
— I believe it would be the most notorious Interior action
since the scandal of the Teapot Dome.
MR. DRIEAR: David Hasten.
MR. KASTEN: For the record, my name is David Kasten,
a rancher south of Brockway, and I am the President of People
for Economic Progress. My comments are pretty short here.
A higher ranking should be given to McCone County
tracts for the following reasons: The resources, coal and
water available; the energy companies have indicated their
i09|;
there were very few non
majority of people in
of this coal developed.
an article in Billings
45
interests in developing these tract
consents to leasing forms returned
McCone County would like to see soi
I would like to quote fn
Gazette, September 27, 1982. "Colstrip Units 3 and U will
generate a lot of electricity in a few years but for now they'i
generating more jobs than any other single Montana project."
One problem with this coal leasing procedure is that
it takes too long. I sincerely hope that if for some reason
economic or court delays pushes this lease sale past the '83
deadline we do not have to go back and start counting mice,
and so forth, again. I do believe that we have done enough of
that sort of thing.
People for Economic Progress members would like to
thank the coal team and all involved for the effort they have
put into this project.
Now, I received a letter I would like to read here,
too, from the planner in Miles City, Ms. Barbara Kennedy.
"Dear David: You and I are not alone in our interest
in local job development in our part of the state. Jobs come
from work to be done. Most work comes from the development of
natural resources. Demand plays its part. Attitude toward all
this plays its part.
"You and I, along with most others, can be assured
that Montanans pin their hopes for growth on natural resources,
most especially on energy resources. If that sounds bold, take
a look at the attached article, 'Montanans and Economic Growth.
The article resulted from 'The Montana Poll.' I quoted
directly.
"In that poll. Dr. Maxlne Johnson, reported researc
As director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research,
Dr. Johnson knows of this state's economy. The poll says
ninety-one percent expect the state to grow in the next five
years.
"I read in another report, 'The Montana Energy
Opinion Study,' that eight percent, a very small group, oppos
development. The percent favoring coal development is seventy-
seven percent. Support for gasification runs at seventy-four
percent. That report states that the folks in McCone County
are keenly aware of the lack of job opportunities near home.
Coal will turn that around.
"I know the market is soft right now. soft for cattle
wheat, coal, sagging for workers, but we have to go on with
ranching, farming and families and coal. The United States of
America has a great future. Certainly we must balance our
foreign trade. Making them rich has made us poorer. We must
turn it around. Industry in cooperation with Government has
that responsibility on fuel. Can we even do it by 1990?
"For coal, in particular reclamation, there are
stringent regulations. Montana is tough on the coal industry.
2-28
47
.
We should be tough and we should be fair — tough but fair."
Her P.S. she has on here, "When I get held up waiting
:l
for a coal train to pass, I sit back and grin--there goes
4
$25,000 in taxes I don't have to pay."
And along with that I would like to submit a study
'■
done by Maxine Johnson she said she would like to have put in
the record.
«
One more thing in here. I don't--I am not sure if
•■'
you have the Circle Chamber of Commerce letter yet, but you
111
will get it. I understand we have until October 8th to
11
submit written, and 1 am sure you will have it before then, but
12
13
I do have another letter that I was asked to read, and it is
from the Glasgow, Montana, Chamber of Commerce.
14
"Dear Sir"— it's addressed to the U. S. Department
15
17
of Interior.
"Dear Sir: A natural function of any Chamber of
Commerce is to promote the growth of its community and to
welcome new business ventures within the area it serves.
"It is with this purpose in mind we offer our support
to the Circle Chamber of Commerce in their endeavor to secure
the very desirable complex known as Circle West to locate near
their city in McCone County.
"An important part of the developer's plan calls for
24
the securing of coal leases on land controlled by the U. S.
Government. We lend our voices to those who are petitioning
48
i
your agency to allow leasing of this land with the pleasant
*
consequences of turning a rather non-productive area into one
■'
offering many jobs and sundry benefits accrued from planned
4
venture by private capital.
"Sincerely, Ron Helland, PresidenL."
»
Thank you.
T
MR. DRIEAR: Steve Elliot.
1U
11
1.1
MR. ELLIOT: My name is Steve Elliot. I am here on
behalf of Wesco Resources, Billings, Montana.
The following comments reflect the views of Wesco
Resources on the Draft EIS for the Fort Union Coal Region.
Our comments for the most part will be directed only to the
areas considered for leasing in the Circle area which is the
14
area designated in Wesco's expressions of interest.
IS
Before Wesco presents its specific comments, there
are some areas that we have noticed that should be corrected.
«
These are on Page 19, the Redwater Tract II, the surface map
110
i«
legend key is incorrect. I think you have the state ownership
and the private ownership color-keyed wrong. Those should be
i
reversed.
On Page 91 the picture showing mule deer, excuse me.
111
a
mule deer, should reflect either Western North Dakota or Easter
Montana and not Western Montana because I don't think that's a
j.*
subject of the EIS here.
112
Third, the State Legislature action found in Appendix
49,
B, Pages A4 and A5, should reflect the proper legal cites to
the new Montana Codes Annotated and not the Revised Codes of
Montana, 1947, and, finally, in the References section. Page
R-l, there is no mention of a study done by Westech of Helena
on the wildlife in the Redwater area of McCone County. The
report was finished in December of 1981 and submitted to the
BLM in Miles City.
It seems to me that if we go to the expense of doing
that that at least that data ought to be used in your EIS.
The following comments are specific comments in the
draft itself. First of all. it's a pleasure to have the
opportunity to comment on the Draft Fort Union Coal Region EIS.
To say the least, it's a massive undertaking and Wesco
Resources, Incorporated, compliments the BLM and its staff for
their efforts.
Wesco's following comments are in relation to the EIS
and its application in the McCone County area where the Circle
West tracts and the Redwater tracts are located. As the BLM is
aware, Wesco has been involved in the area for the past nine
years. Wesco has cooperated with the BLM along the entire
leasing process and even before the area was to be considered
for the upcoming competitive federal coal leasing. During this
time, Wesco has seen the plans for the BN-owned Dreyer Ranch
change from a fertilizer-from-coal process to a synthetic-
diesel-fuel project to the latest proposal which involves a
114
50
coal exchange with the BLM.
The proposed exchange presents a problem for Wesco,
and we feel it is an improper action on the part of the BLM to
include the proposed exchange in the EIS process at this late
date, especially when the BN, like Wesco, has expressed an
interest to have the coal in the area leased. This exchange
would have—there is nothing in the EIS that speaks also to
what happens if this exchange takes place and whether or not
the resulting tonnages that would be dropped from the leasing
target would be replaced by other tracts that aren't in the
preferred alternative.
It also seems improper to continue to consider the
exchange when there has not been a determination of whether or
not the proposed exchange is in the public interest before you
go to the expense of determining whether or not it ought to be
in one of the preferred alternatives, because it seems to me
that if it's not in the public interest if a determination like
that is made you don't need to go to the expense and the time
to do the studies that are going on right now.
To elaborate on these points and for the record Wesco
opposes the proposed coal exchange for the following reasons:
When the EIS addresses the end use of the coal and says that a
ynthetic fuels plant will be available for two plants on the
two resulting 350,000,000-ton blocks of coal, it fails to con-
ider Montana's stringent plant siting laws and the rural
2-29
114
115
51
nature of the area. Montana would probably not allow the sit-
ing of two plants in close proximity to one another.
The EIS also fails to recognize that a synthetic
fuels plant cannot economically exist unless it has in excess
of 500,000,000 tons of coal. I know that there aren't a lot of
areas to look around to determine what kind of reserve base is
necessary for these things, but the one close to home in North
Dakota has a reserve base of at least a billion tons, and I
can tell you even though it might not be germane to this that
the tonnage figure for Sasol in South Africa where the project
is in existence now has in excess of two billion tons for thei:
plants.
Wesco recognizes that many of these concerns are
being addressed in the document to be done by the Miles City
BLM district office. However, it would seem to me to be more
prudent to have the key legal issues and the public interest
test addressed before the public pays to do a separate study
as well as consider the exchange possibility in the Draft EIS,
especially if these issues throw the exchange out of further
consideration.
The Fort Union Coal Team has concluded that alterna-
tive three is the preferred alternative which includes the coal
subject to the proposed exchange. There is no discussion of
what happens to the leasing target if the 350,000,000 tons is
hanged. In other words, would other tracts not presently
115
52
included in the final leasing target be made available for the
_-
coal lease sale?
In Wesco' s opinion, the ranking of the tracts and the
'
reasons given for ranking the Redwater tracts low in compari-
son to the Circle West tracts are unjustified. Wesco conducted
■•
a survey of the Circle area attitudes toward coal mining in the
summer of 1980. Development was favored across the entire
116
»
county by nearly ninety percent of the sample. The discussion
"
about the Redwater River and the potential damage to it by
'»
mining the Redwater is also a concern to Wesco. There are few
ii
instances that Wesco is aware of that the Redwater River is
i :
used for crop irrigation. In fact, the river does not flow
n
during much of the growing season. We also understand that the
_i*
water quality is very poor.
,.
Wesco believes that the BLM's approach to predict
what the end use of the coal will be is a mistake. In the- not
too distant past, there was a study done called the North
Central Power Study. This raised intense concern among many
Montanans and has proven to be an untrue forecast of the energy
117
24
and power development. The economic constraints to synfuels
development as well as the lack of demand for lignite coal
power generation makes the projected use estimates literally
useless and misleading. In Wesco's opinion, the presence of
abundant water for industrial use and the presence of signifi-
cant coal resources make the Circle area attractive primarily
117
for synthetic fuels development.
The socio-economic impacts to Circle would be great
4
whether Circle West or the Redwater area were developed. Wesco
does not believe, however, that the Circle West site has a
118
"
lesser impact than the Redwater area on Circle. Since the
Redwater tracts are nearer to Circle, many of the necessary
social services are near at hand. At least under initial
development, while the impact may be great to Circle, Wesco
believes the proximity of the in-place social services would
|||
favor the Redwater area over Circle West.
1:1
Wesco does not hold itself out as a reclamation
expert, but more data would have to be made conclusive to show
that the Redwater area is more difficult to reclaim than the
14
Circle West area. Wesco believes the contrary is true because
119
„.
of the nature of the terrain which is mostly rolling dry-land
wheat production and grazing. The fact that the Redwater area
has crop lands should not preclude it from development,
especially when the majority of the surface over the tracts has
"
existing surface owner consents where the landowners have given
-
permission to surface mine the coal. Nothing is mentioned in
120
»
the Draft EIS about how the landowners who have given their
consents to mine would be affected by the proposed exchange.
n
There is nothing discussed about the terms of the two coal
121
-'
reservations that exist in the BN and federal patents. Since
the two coal reservations are different, in what manner and how
"uc:„;:r~-::„:e.'°:T"'<1
121
122
123
would they be exchanged?
Wesco would like to take exception with the statement
made on Page 73 regarding the Redwater tracts. Rationale was
given by Wesco at the regional coal team meeting and at other
meetings for inclusion of the Redwater tracts in the preferred
leasing alternative. Wesco did not agree with the ranking pro-
cess of the Redwater tracts and still doesn't. How the coal
team can justify leasing the Burns Creek Tract in the preferred
alternative and ignore tracts of interest like Redwati i i
beyond comprehension, especially when it is apparent that the
Burns Creek Tract will not clear the leasing process.
One final thought is the coal leasing process itself.
Applying the Powder River Coal Region sale procedures of April
28, 1982, only those tracts that have valid surface owner con-
ents will clear for leasing. Wesco assu
rue in the Fort Union Region. Therefore
11 the designated tracts are put up for
iver sale, the initial leasing altemati
es the same will be
what harm is done if
easing? In the Powde
s called for 1 .4 to
1.5 billion tons. The Secretary picked the maximum "figure and
nade all the tracts available for leasing. When the sale was
leld, six tracts dropped out because of refusals to consent and
tracts received no bids. The result was the leasing of the
I preferred leasing alternative. The 1.4 to 1.5 billion
coal is exactly what was leased. To preclude tracts
:or leasing and not provide that those tracts can replace ton-
2-30
123
55
nages that would drop out beca
or because of exchanges or tho
a mockery of the process and essen
ing process puts a burden on the i
those tracts for Leasing, It's no
either there weren't anv bid
orts of things seems to make
tially the f edera 1 coa i leas
sted parties to clear
11 y done by the Secreta:
Of the Interior. It's not really done by the coal team. The
tract ranking process stymies the potential of competitive
leasing, especially where leasing interest has been demon-
strated. If the tracts can clear the unsuitability process and
are available for leasing, they should be placed in the compet
tive arena and the marketplace and the interested parties
should decide whether or not the tracts are leased.
Wesco Resources appreciates the opportunity to appea
here tonight. Thank you.
MR. DRIEAR: That is the last of the written or the
oral statements that I have an indication of on the cards. Is
there anyone else who would like to make an oral statement on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement this evening? If so,
would you please come forward now and do so. Let the record
show that there are no additional oral comments.
If there are any written statements that you have
this evening that you did not care to make an oral statement
but you have your written statements with you before you leave
i evening I would like to ask that you please leave them on
the table for us.
With that I would like to close the meeting and on
behalf of the State of Montana and Bureau of Land Management
thank you for attending.
(The hearing then concluded at the hour of 9:08 p.m
this 29th day of September, 1982.)
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau o
Land Management, in the matter of a public hearing concerning
the Fort Union Environmental Impact Statement, in the Community
Room of the Dawson County Courthouse, Glendive, Montana, on
Wednesday, September 29, 1982, were held as herein appears and
that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of
the Department or Commission.
Certified Shorthand Repo
and
egistered Professional Rei
%i«
124
FORT UNION DRAFT E2S HEARING
TESTIMONY OF MYRON SCHULTZ
SEPTEMBER 29, 1982
MY NAME IS MYRON SCHULTZ, I AM PRESIDENT OF DAWSON RESOURCE COUNCIL. I AM
OWNER AND PARTNER OF A GRAIN FARM IfcAR BLOOMFEELD, MONTANA.
IN THE INTTCDUCTQRY LETTER IN THE DRAFT EIS BY STATE DIRECTOR PENFOLD, HE SAYS,
"TESTIMONY RECEIVED THROUGH WRITTEN OR ORAL COMMENTS AT THE FORMAL HEARINGS
WILL BE CONSIDERED DURING THE PREPARATION OF THE FINAL FJJVTRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT. NO DECISION ON THE PROPOSED LEASE SALE WILL BE MADE UNTIL THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL TMPACT STATEMENT IS COMPLETED". ON PAGE 73 IT STATES, "THE RCT
WAS OPENED MINDED ON THE ISSUE REGARDING THEIR FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 1983, AND WAS STILL LOOKING
FOR PUBLIC INPUT PRIOR TO THAT TIME". BASED ON THE ABOVE QUOTES, WHICH ARE
JUST TWO OF THE MANY QUOTES I COULD HAVE STATED, IT IS APPARENT THAT PUBLIC IN-
PUT IS TO HAVE DIRECT INFLUENCE ON FINAL DECISIONS MADE IN REGARDS TO THE FORT
UNION REGION COAL. HAS THIS IN FACT BEEN THE CASE? WHEN YOU REVIEW THE PUBLIC
INPUT GIVEN AT THE FORMAL HEARINGS HELD ON MAY 6 AND OCTOBER 21, 1981 AND COM-
PARE THAT TO THE DRAFT EIS, IT IS VERY APPARENT THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE IN-
TERIOR'S DESIRES TAKE PRIORITY OVER THE MAJORITY PUBLIC INPUT IN THE DECISIONS
THAT ARE MADE AND PROPOSED. THEN WE WERE TOLD VERY EMPHATICALLY, AT THE WIBAUX,
MONTANA PUBLIC MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 1, THAT THE DRAFT EIS IS A FOREWARNING OF
WHAT IS TO COME. SO IT BECOMES VERY EVIDENT THAT WE ARE BEPC SUBJECTED TO
NOTHING BUT DOUBLE-TALK AND IT CAUSES US TO SERIOUSLY WONDER IF THE DEE IS CAST,
THE FINAL DECISION ALREADY MADE, AND THE PUBLIC MEETTNGS AND FORMAL HEARINGS ARE
HELD MERELY TO 'IMPLY WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS. SO I CHALLiNGE THE REGIONAL
COAL TEAM TO LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY TO TOE PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE, ESPECIALLY BY
THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE TN THE AREAS PROPOSED FOR COAL MINING AM J RELATED
124L
125
126
127
ON PAGE 1 OF TOE INTRODUCTION TN THE DRAFT EIS IT STATES, "THIS MEANS THAT COAL
WILL BE LEASED TO ACTIVELY SERVE NATIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS, AND NOT JUST
AS A RESPONSE TO INDTVTDUAL COMPANIES" . THIS BEING THE CASE, WHERE IS TOE EN
DEPTH, ACCURATE, DETAILED, COMPREHENSIVE STUDY AS TO TOE NATIONAL ENERGY REQUIRE-
MENTS AND THEREFORE NEED FOR THE COAL LEASING TARGET? I HAVE ASKED TO SEE AND
RESEAJfCH THIS STUDY OF NEED NUMEROUS TIMES AND HAVE YET TO RECEIVE IT. I
SERIOUSLY WONDER IS ONE EXISTS. WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR PRESENT GLUT OF COAL, THE
NUMBER OF PRESENT FEDERAL COAL LEASES NOT DEVELOPED IN ANY WAY, THE POWDER
RIVER BASIN COAL LEASED BELOW FAIR MARKET VALUE, TOE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS THAT HAVE GONE BELLY UP, A MESSAGE COMES OUT VERY CLEAR-THERE IS NO
SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR LEASING AND DEVELOPING COAL EN THE FORT UNION REGION.
AS I STUDIED THE DRAFT EIS, I WAS APPALLED AT TOE MANY CONFUSING, INACCURATE,
AND INCOMPLETE STATEMENTS AND CHARTS. ON PAGE 63 IS THIS STATEMENT, "THERE
WOULD NOT BE ANY ADDITIONAL AGRICULTURAL DISTURBANCE, MERELY ALTERNATIVE AREAS
BEING MINED THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE BYPASSED IN ONGOING MINING OPERATIONS".
FURTHER ON PAGE 114 FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 WE READ, "THESE LOSSES WOULD NOT SIGNI-
FICANTLY REDUCE REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, NOR WOULD THE AGRICULTURE
SUPPORT ECONOMY BE AFFECTED. WITHIN THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF AN AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMY SUBJECTED TO FLUCTUATIONS EN SUPPLY AND DEMAND, INTEREST RATES, AND
WEATHER CYCLES, THE REGIONAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE FORT UNION TRACTS ARE MTNISCULE" . BEING DIRECTLY INVOLVED EN
AGRICULTURE AS A GRAIN FARMER FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS, I SERIOUSLY QUESTION TOE
VALIDITY OF THE ABOVE QUOTED STATEMENTS. TO BRUSH OFF THE VERY GREAT AND
FAR REACHING IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE AS BEING MTNISCULE IS TOTALLY ABSURD.
2-31
127
128
129
PAGE 3
LOSING OR DESTROYING EVEN 1% OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCIONT OF AN AREA IS VERY
SIGNIFICANT AND NO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION BY ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES WILL
OFFSET THIS KIND OF LOSS. THE ENERGY COMPENSATION IS A ONE-TIME, SHORT TERM
SITUATION, WHLLE AGRICULTURAL LOSS IS A CONTINUING LONG-TERM PROBLEM.
THE DRAFT EIS ADDRESSES VERY INADEQUATELY THE ON-SITE IMPACTS, BUT IT COMPLETELY
IGNORES THE OFF-SITE, OFF-TRACT IMPACTS WHICH ARE JUST AS SEVERE AND DESTRUCTIVE,
OR EVEN MORE SO, THAN THE ON-SITE IMPACTS. THE ONLY COMPENSATION ALTERNATIVE
IS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TAKE THE CASE TO COURT. THIS ALTERNATIVE JUST
DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND IT INDICATES AN IRRESPONSIBILITY TOWARD THOSE
SUFFERING THE OFF-SITE IMPACTS.
THE CONFUSING STATEMENTS REGARDING RECLAMATION MAKES THE DRAFT EIS HARDLY
CREDIBLE AS A BASIS FOR DECISION MAKING. "POST-MINING LAND USE WOULD BE THE
SAME AS PRE-MINDC USE", PAGE 41. "SUCCESSFUL RECLAMATION OF WETLANDS, WOODY
DRAWS, AND NATIVE PRAIRIE IS YET TO BE PROVED", PAGE 63. "PRELIMINARY INDI-
CATION ... ARE THAT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY OF MINED LAND CAN RE RESTORED",
PAGE 89 . THE ABOVE QUOTES INDICATE WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO DJ ADEQUATE
RECLAMATION. THEREFORE IT IS NOT ACCURATE OR CREDIBLE TO MAKE STATEMENTS
CONCERNING THE SUCCESS OF RECLAMATION.
THERE ARE MAN1/ NORE INACCURATE AND CONFUSING STATEMENTS IN THE DRAFT EIS, BUT
FOR SAKE OF BREVITY I WILL SUFFICE WITH THE ABOVE. I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE
BY CHALLENGING THE REGIONAL COAL TEAM AND THE OTHERS WHO WLLL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE FINAL EIS TO SPEND SOME TIME OUT IN THE AREAS OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY
AW) VISIT WITH THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE »IRECTLY AFFECTED BOTH ON TRACT AND OFF
TRACT TO GET SOME ACCURATE INFORMATION RATHER THAN JUST ASSUMPTIONS AND CON-
FUSING STATEMENTS. I WOULD ALSO CHALLENGE THEM TO LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT THE
NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT BEFORE MAKING DECISIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS.
Dawson Resource Council
P O Box 886
Clendive, Montana 59330
130
131
132
133
r
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT AND NORMA ETZEL, SAVAGE, MONTANA
SEPTEMBER 29, 1982
GLENDTVE, MX.
WE HAVE MIXED EMOTIONS ABOUT TESTIFYING AT THIS HEARING. WE FEEL THAT THE
MAJORITY OF THE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC IS EITHER IGNORED OR GIVEN VERY LITTLE
CONSIDERATION. THERE SEEMS TO BE SO MANY OF THESE HEARINGS AND THEY DO CUT INTO
VALUABLE TIME.
AS TO THE EFFECTS OF MINING ON AIR QUALITY, IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF COMMON
SENSE. WITH THE WIND WE HAVE EN THIS COUNTRY, ANY DISTURBANCE OF THE SOD WILL
POLLUTE THE AIR, TO SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE PLANTS BURNING THE COAL. LIVING
IN A SOUTH EASTERLY POSITION OF THE EXISTING KNIFE RIVER MINE AT SAVAGE WITH
OUR PREVAILINC WEST WINDS HAS GIVEN US FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAPPENS.
AGAIN, COMMON SENSE WELL TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENS TO COAL DUST IN A WIND. COULD
WE TURN DJTO A "BLACK LUNG AREA" D? MINING WERE DONE ON A LARGER SCALE? ANOTHER
AREA OF CONCERN IS WATER POLLUTION AND DEPLETION . HOW CAN A NATURAL SPRING BE
REPLACED, OR A WATER VEIN REACTIVATED LF DISTURBED? WHAT WILL THE RESIDUE
FROM THE SYNFUEL PLANTS DO TO THE GRA2DJG AND AGRICULTURAL LAND? IT IS OUR
UNDERSTANDDJG THAT CATTLE NEAR PLANTS *""- NOT FEED ON THE GRASS.
WE BELIEVE DEVELOPMENT IS ESSENTIAL WHEN THERE IS A DEFINITE NEED. LIKEN
ENERGY TO MONEY, WHEN THERE IS NOT AS MUCH, YOU TEND TO USE IT MDRE WISELY. AT
THE PRESENT, MANY MINES HAVE CUT BACK PRODUCTION DUE TO LACK OF DEMAND. TO DATE,
RECLAMATION IN AREAS HAS NOT PROVEN UP, AS MUCH AS THE RECLAMAINED LAND HAS
NOT RETURNED TO PRIOR USAGE. WEEDS SEEM TO THRIVE BEST DJ MINED AREAS.
134
135
IN GRANTING PERMITS FOR PLANTS AND MINES, THERE SHOULD BE A GUARANTEE
THAT ENERGY WILL BE PRODUCED. CONSUMERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PICK UP THE TAB FOR
PROJECTS WHICH FAIL. BEING DJ THE BUSINESS OF FARMING, IT WOULD BE NICE IF
WE COULD PASS ON THE COST OF PRODUCING CROPS WHETHER WE GOT ANYTHING OR NOT.
WE HAVE SEEN THE SOCIAL DTACT5 OF THE OIL BOOM DJ THE AREA. THINGS ARE
NOW ON THE SLOW DOWN SIDE AND MANY"NATTVE" PEOPLE ARE FEELING THE EFFECTS.
THE WORK FORCES WILL JUST MOVE ON AND UPSET SOME OTHER COMMUNITY. WE READ
RECENTLY OF THE OLL LEASE SALE AND APE WONDERING IF THE HUGE COAL LEASE SALE
PROPOSED AT SUCH A TIME WILL RESULT IN THE SAME GIVE AWAY PRICING. THIS MAY BE
A TIME WHEN LEASING LESS COULD BE BETTER. WE REMEMBER OF A LEASDJG DJ CUR
AREA DJ THE 60'S ON WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT ARE THE PRIORITIES OF MDJING COMPANIES? PROFIT WOULD BE OUR ASSUMPTION.
OUR PRIORITY IS A HEALTHLY PLACE TO LIVE. WE DO NOT GO BEGGING TO MDJING
CONCERNS FOR THEIR MONEY. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN WITH WHAT WE HAVE. THAT IS
MOPE THAN YOU CAN SAY FOR MINING CONCERNS. THEY ARE INSISTENT ON CHANGDJG
OUR ENVIRONMENT BY ANY MEANS THEY CAN, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT ALWAY5 BE
WORKING TO CHANGE EMINENT DOMAIN LAWS TO THEIR ADVANTAGE OR CONSTANTLY HOUNDDJG
LANDOWNERS TO SELL AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD NO.
COULDN'T WE ALL CONSIDER DOING WITH LESS DJ ORDER TO PRESERVE OUR AIR
QUALITY, CLEAN WATER, ECONOMIC STABILITY, FOOD PRODUCTION, AND IRREPLACEABLE
NATURAL BEAUTIES AND WONDERS?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
Greg Veit, Beach, ND
Fort Union Coal Hearings, Glendive, MT, Sept. 29, 1982
This is the written text of statements made at the hearings on 9/29/82
My name is Greg Veit, I am Vice-President of the Golden
Valley Resource Council.
I wish to make a statement concerning air pollution resulting
from the Government leasing of coal to be used in energy plants.
This is of interest to the Golden Valley Resource Council because the
proposed Tenneco coal-gasification plant is adjacent to our county.
The use of coal to produce energy is the dirtiest method now
employed. Its ultimate toxicity has not yet been determined. The
BLM itself had damned the use of coal, not by any expressed opinion.
but by the facts their researchers have gathered in producing their
136
Environmental Impact Statement.
Congress some time ago enacted a Clean Air Act, and is now
considering an equally good one which is intended to protect the
people of the United States from the dangers of air pollution.
By leasing coal at its preferred alternative, the BLM is planning
for and encouraging additional coal-conversion plants which will
break the air standards set by Congress. Expecting to get all
the coal they need, three coal -conversion companies are currently
seeking waivers which undermine the Clean Air Act, creating a sit-
uation in which a government agency , the RLM , is planning development
which will oppose the will of Congress.
2-32
136
Greg Veit, p. 2.
Proof of this is found in the Air Quality Supplement
recently mailed out by theBLM. There we find that for all six
alternative leasing schedules the BLM studies show that the
amount of sulfur dioxide in the air would exceed Class I standards
Total Suspended Particulates will exceed the annual maximum level
allowed anywhere in North Dakota and Montana. There are no
visibility standards, but the "thresholds" established by BLM
would be exceeded in both units of Theodore Roosevelt National Par
of which
137
There are also grave potential hazards, the <
are now unknown, in the areas of organic compounds, trace metals,
acid rain, radioactive elements, and the effect of emissions on
weather and climate. A BLM spokesman has said that leasing will
take place, regardless of the findings. In view of these dangers
it is hoped that only enough coal will be leased to supply the
needs of present plants and those under construction.
A second area of concern to us in Golden Valley County is th
economic impact of development of the South Wibaux-Beach tract.
The Impact Statement underestimates the severity and duration of
disruption to the community of Beach and the surrounding area,
should development occur.
In particular, we take exception to the projections of f isca
revenues as portrayed on page A-18 of the Statement. The graph
projects and initial deficit, then a SI , 000, 000/year surplus
beginning in 1992.
Greg Veit, p. 3.
Information that we have received from the Tenneco Company,
from the North Dakota Legislative Council, and from the North
Dakota Energy Impact Office contradicts the findings of the BLM.
At the August 2, 1982 Legislative Task Force meeting in
Beach, the Tenneco Representative said, "it is likely that mining
would not take place in North Dakota for about 20 years." [taken
from the minutes of the meeting) A study by the Energy Impact
Office states, "As long as the coal is mined only in Montana, the
communities will not receive Coal Severence Taxes, cannot borrow
from the Coal Trust Fund, and cannot receive assistance from the
Coal Impact Fund." (Mitigation of Impacts in Western North Dakota
137
from Tenneco Development)
This leaves Beach with mitigation money from only two sources;
front-end money from Tenneco, and property taxes. The fact is.
Tenneco has not pledged any mitigation funds, nor have they ever
given front-end money to any communities, anywhere.
This means that Beach is left with property taxes alone to
pay for: improved school facilities, additional teachers, new water
and sewer facilities, improvements to county roads and city streets.
maintenance equipment, community facilities, and recreational
facilities and equipment.
Given this situation, it is inconceivable that Beach will have
a SI million/per year surplus within three years of construction
start-up.
Any reasonable accounting of the costs and benefits of
development of the South Wibaux-Beach tract must conclude that
the formidable impacts are not justified by strip-mining to
produce high-priced synthetic gas.
«S C-UiiOUN, XaMBias OF t'rta CifcKin&Z, Hi &Ai£ IS CHARLi^ RGcR,
I Fai'ji A.ND lUiiL'd 15 ruL-j WEST uF CIRCLE.
V0 ■LATe 10 COUNT UP Tit, NWiiErf 01 ritffj 1KA1 I HA\fc teEH TO
(J£AiUfl35, WFUtOvUIUNAL MEETINGS, BRIE+'IMGS AND CONSULTATION SESSIONS
COHCSlUUNG fda K.M.F.P. OK TKl FORI UNION t-.l.S. 0/ER THE PAST 5EVERAL
YEARS. IF I EVER DID, I'D PROBABLY ASK MYSELF WHAT IN THE .-ZLL AR£ YOU
DOING ^RE AGAIN YARGER.
I COULD SPEND ONE AND A HALF HOURS STANDING UP HERE REITERATING
ALL OF HY FQRKER TESTIMONY POINTING OUT ALL OF THE INADEQUACIES OF TOUR
STUDIES, THE DOUBLE STANDARD YOU OPERATE UNDER, YOUR FAILURE 10 RfcSPOKI)
TO LEGITIMATE LAND 0WNtR CONCERNS AND ALL OF YOUK OWN RULES AND KtGULAllJiJj
THAT YOU-YE CHOSEN TO IGNORE. I COULD TA1UE ALL OF 1ft ALLCITeD riMa AND
SAY NOlrflNG JJ1 I TOLD YOU So. oUT acCAUSE THIS IS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY,
WE WILL RAVE 10 C0M.-i.NT ON THIS £.1.5., THERE ARE A FEW MOSE POINTS I
W0LL3 LIKE 10 MAiU..
DOST SET ME -RONG, 1 00 NT RAVE ANY ILLUSIONS THAI ANYTnING 1
SAY WILL MAAE THE SLIGHTEST an OF DIFFERENCE TO YOUR BOSS ON THE POTOMAC.
THAT IS UNLESS OF COURSE THE FORT UNION REGIONAL COAL is. AH, CITIZENS
AND IRE STAIi GOVERNMENTS OF THIS AREA RAVE THE COURAGE TO SAY, "UK. WAIT,
WE'VE HAD r.;:0'uGH!-.
WHAT WE SAY WONT HATTER UNLESS WE EXPOSE THE FORT UNION i.I.S.
COAL LEASE TARGETS, FEDERAL COAL PROGRAM AND THE NEW RUU CHANGES FOR
WHAT TritY REALLY ARe. THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR HAS SOLD US OUT AND Hi
MAKES NO BONES ABOUT IT.
THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR WOULD DO AWAY WTTH LAND OWNER RIGHTS,
HE WOULD DO AWAY WITH DUE DILIGENCE, HE rfOULJ DO AWAY WTTH THE FORT UNION
2-33
REGIONAL COAL TEAM AND T rfE RIGHTS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS TO HAVE ANY
DECISION IN THE DEVELOPMENT Of THE NATURAL RESOURCES WITHIN OUR BOUNDARIES.
AND THE IS THE NEW FEDERALISM WE'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE SO IN AWE
OF — FINE EXAMPLE OF MANAGING THE PUBLIC'S RESOURCES, KEEPING IN MIND
OFCQURSE, MULTIPLE USE AND SUSTAINED HELD.
ON THE 6TH OF MAr I TESTIFIED BEFORE THE FORT UNION REGIOSAL COAL
TEAM IN MILES CITY, AND WARNED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF OVERLEASING AND THE
SUBSEQUENT SPECULATION THAT MIGHT OCCUR. I STATED THAT IF YOU MADE A
LOGICAL, REASONABLY SIZED LEASE SALE RECOMMENDATION IT WOULD PROBABLY BE
IGNORED, AND IT WAS. IN OCTOBER I ONCE AGAIN TESTIFIED STATING THE NEED
FOR COAL LEASING WAS LESS NOW THAN U WAS IN MAY. I ALSO WARNED ABOUT
THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE COAL PRXRAM THAT WOULD VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE
THE REGIONAL COAL TEAM.
SINCE THAT TLME THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR HAS ADAPTED NEW REGU-
LATIONS WHICH KEEP THE REGIONAL COAL TEAMS FROM HAVING AMY VOICE IN FUTURE
COAL LEASE SALES, WHICH OF COURSE, THEREBY ELIMINATES THE STATES. FURTHER-
MORE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ADAPTED A NEW POLICY THAT 'WILL LEA5E COAL ON THE
BASIS OF WHAT INDUSTRY WANTS FOR RESERVES RATHER THAN HOW MUCH IS NECESSARY
TO MEET TRUE ENERGY FEEDS.
IN THE BEGINNING OF THE FORT UNION E.I.S., YOU DISCUSS SCOPING, ALL
Cf THOSE AREAS OF CONCERN THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED - AIR QUALITY, WATER
QUALITY, EFFECT OF FACILITY WASTES ON GROUND WATER, AGRICULTURE, UTILITY
CORRIDORS. IMPACT OF COMMUNITIES, INFLATION. LIFE STYLE CHANGES.
THEY'VE ALL BEEN AT LEAST ADDRESSED OR MENTIONED IN GENERAL TERMS,
BUT THERE ARE NO CONCLUSIVE RESULTS FROM ANY IN DEPTH STUDIES. NOTHING
THAT CAN BE PROVEN. IT'S MENTIONED IN SCQPItG AND FOR THE MOST PART, THAT'S
AS FAR AS I T GOES.
- 3 -
THE FORT UNION S.I.S. STUDIES SIX OIFFtRcOT ALTERNATIVES! I-HOM
ALTERNATIVE t\ - LEASING FOR MAINTENANCE TRACTS, TO ALTERNATIVE #6 -
LEASING VIRTUALLY EVERY AVAILABLE TON OF FEDERAL COAL IN THE FORT UNION
COAL DEPOSIT. CONSIDERING OUR ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT THE ACTIONS
OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR UP TC THIS ^OINT, I FAIL TO SEE WHY WE EVEN
BOTHER TO STUDY ANYTHING OTHER THAN ALTERNATIVE /6. HE WILL MORE THAN
LIKELY RECOMMEND 5-6 SYNTUEL PLANTS AND 2.1* POWER PLANTS IN DAWSON, WIBAUX
AND McCONE COUNTIES.
THE FEDERAL COAL MANAGF.MENT PRXRAM WHICH REGULATES HOW FEDERAL
COAL IS TO BE LEASED HAS FOUR PRIMARY GOARS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR.
TAKEN FROM THE ABSTRACT PAGE 3-2 I
»1) EMPLOY LAND USE PLANNING AND EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS TO ENSURE THAT FEDERAL COAL IS COMMITTED
TO PRODUCTION AND PRODUCED IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE
MANNER WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND LAND
OWNERS EFFECTED 9Y COAL DEVELOPMENT."
I FAIL TO SEE HOW LEASING 1 BILLION TONS OF COAL AND DEYBSTATIKJ
LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND LAND OWNERS CAN BE MISCONSTRUED AS BEING RESPONSIBLE.
"2) ASSURE THAT SUFFICIENT Q UANTI TI^S ARE LEASED TO MEET
ENERGY NEEDS."
WS HAVE TO HAND IT TO THE SECRETARY, HE CERTAINLY DID MEET THAT
GOAL! UNLESS OF COURSE YOU IAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT iriERE IS
NO PROVEN NEED TO LEASE ANY MORE FEDERAL COAL.
"3) ASSURE THAT FEDERAL COAL IS PRODUCED IN AN ECONOMICALLY
EFFICIENT MANNER WITH A FAIR ECONOMICAL RETURN TO THE U.S.
FOR ALL COAL PRODUCED."
CONSIDER THE POWDER RIVER LEASE SALE HELD LAST SPRING. TWO OF THE
TRACTS OFFERED DIDN'T EVEN RECEIVE BIDS AND MOST OF THE OTHERS ONLY RECEIVED
ONE BID. THE SECRETARY GAVE AWAY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Of THE PU5LICS
RESOURCES TO THE COAL SPECULATORS, A FACT SO OBVIOUS THAT THE LEASE SALE
IS BEING CHALLSKJEO IN COURT AND IN CONGRESS.
THE RESULTS OF A FORT UNION COAL LEASE SALE WILL BE EVEN WORSE,
BECAUSE MANY OF THE COMPANIES WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED INTEREST IN
FORT UNION COAL, NO LONGER PLAN ON SUBMITTING BIDS.
"<0 EMPHASIZE CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION WITH STATE GOVERNMENTS
IN THE PLANNING, LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL COAL."
CONSIDERING WHAT I HAVE ALREADY STATED ABOUT THE ROLE OF STATE
GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONAL COAL TEAM, I WOULD LIKE TO READ PART OF A
LETTER WRITTEN TO THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR ON AUGUST JO, 1962, BY ALL OF
THE WESTERN GO/ERNORS.
"DEAR SECRETARY WATT t
ON BEHALF OF THE UNDERSIGNED GOVERNORS OF THE MAJOR PUBLIC LANUo
STATES, I AH ■WRITING TO EXPRESS OUR COLLECTIVE CONCERN THAT OUR dEST EFFORTS
TO FOSTER :,Z 5FIRIT OF YOUR NEW FEDERALISM IN THE AREA OF FEDERAL COAL
LEASING - EFFORTS THAT HAVE PRODUCED THE FIRST SECCESSFUL COAL LEASING IN A
DECADE - ARE NOW FALTERING UNDER THE CHANGED POLICIES AND REGULATIONS OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. THE EFFECT OF THESE CHANGES IS TO ONCE
AGAIN CENTRALIZE ON THE POTOMAC CRITICAL DECISIONS AFFECTING WESTERN jIATES -
decisions that should be made in the region. the final regulations governing
federal coal ieasing that were published by the interior department on
july 30 have reduced the role of states in federal coal leasing decisions.
specifically, the regulations eviscerate the most vital organ for state/fcderal
cooperation, the regional coal teams. the reduced pole of the regional coal
tiams, and thus the states, is directly contrary to the intent of that
department , as stated in the proposed regulations! "the changes would not
significaj.tly alter the role of the regional coal teams."
138
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE GOVERNORS FOR DEFENDING THE RIGHTS
OF THE STAT-S AND US CITIZENS. IT SiEMS OBVIOUS AFTER USING SUCH STRONG
LANGUATS THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO PURSUE THE MATTER AND DO cVSRTTrtlNO
IN THEIR POWER TO SEE THAT THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR CAN NO LONGER RUN
"ROUGH SHOD" OVER THE STATES.
KY ONE MAIN CONCERN WITH THE FORT UNION B.I.S. AND IriE PROPOSED
JUNE 1963 LEASE SALE IS THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO LEASE. IF IT IS LEASED,
IT WILL BE FOR SPECULATIVE REASONS ONLY.
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY PLANS FOR SYNTHETIC FUEL PLANTS, POWER
PLANTS AND NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE BEING DROPPED OR INDEFINABLY POSTPONED.
THE WY COAL PLANT IN WYOMING, THE ANTELOPE VALLEY STATION IN NORTH DAKOTA,
AND THE INFAMOUS WOOPS NUCLEAR PLANTS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST ARe ALL
EXAMPLES. MONTANA MINES ARE OPtRATING AT 604 CAPACITY TWO MONTANA MINES
ARE NOW IN COURT WITH THEIR UTILITY CUSTOMERS WHO WANT OUT OF THEIR COAL
CONTRACTS. WESTMORLAND AND PEA30DY MINES ARE OPERATING AT ONE-HALF CAPACITY.
LAST SUNDAY'S BILLINGS GAZETTE CARRIED AN ARTICU ABOUT GILLETTE.
WYOMING'S HAMPSHIRE PROJECT, STATING THE SYNFUEL PROJECT WAS NOT NEEDED.
IT WENT ON TO SAY IF IT WAS BUILT, IT WOULD LAY OFF WORKERS IN THE WYOMING,
BILLINGS AND DENVER REFINERIES. WHY? BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEMAND, THERE
IS NO NEED. THE M1NOWEST POWER POOL 'WHICH IS THE PREDEOMINATE MARKET FOR
FOMT UNION COAL CURRENTLY HAS 9,030 MEGAWATTS OF OVER PRODUCTION. THAT IS
1/3 OF THEIR TOTAL GENERATING CAPACITY.
THE COAL MARKET IS DECLINING WEEKLY. IN VIRTUALLY EVERY TRADE PRESS
PUBLICATION OR NEWSPAPER ONE CAN READ WE HEAR OF THE SOFT COAL MARKET NOW,
FORTHE NEXT TEN YEARS OR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE.
IN McCONE COUNTY NO ONE HAS EVtN FILED A LONG RANGE PLAN. THE
ONLY POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE WOULD BE IF THE B.N.,
B.L.M. MINERAL SWAP FIASCO WERE TO TAKE PLACE.
2-34
138
- 6 -
AND SO I ASK YOU, IF IHEHS IS NO DEMAND, WHY LEASI THe COAL? rHERc
CAN BE ONLY ONE ANSWER. SPECULATION: THE MULTINATIONAL ENERGY CORPORATIONS
Of THIS COUNTRY WANT THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR TO GIVE. THEM HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF THE PUBLICS RESOURCES. IT CERTAINLY APPEARS
THAT THE ENERGY COMPANIES HAVE A WAY OF GETTING WHAT THEY WANT FROM THS
CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.
OVERLEA3INC AND THE SUBS$UcNT SPECULATIVE AbUSE BY iNERGY COM? ANUS
IS NOT NEW. IN EARLY 1962PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC SOLO THEIR FEDERAL LEAitS
IN UTAH TO SUN OIL FOR $20,000 PES ACRE. THESE LEASES WERE ORIGINALLY
OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN THE 1960's FOR $3.70 PER ACRE. LAST YEAR
PEABODY COAL COMPANY SOLD THEIR FEDERAL LEASES TO SHELL OIL FOR $17,000 PER
ACRE. PEA30DY BOUGHT THESE LEASES IN 1966 FOR $3.00 PER ACRE.
THIS SQUANDERING OF THE PUBLIC'S RESOURCES IN THE PAST IS SAD,
BUT TO DO IT AGAIN ON SUCH A GRAND SCALE AS IN THE POWDER RIVER LEASE
SALE AND THE FORT UNION LEASE SALE WOULD BE A NATIONAL DIXRACE.
AT A TIMi WHcN UNEMPLOYMENT IS AT lQi, THE COUNTRY IS Oh THr. BRINK
OF A OETRcSSION, AND PEOPLe. NEtO SOMETHING TO LOOK FORE"*ARD TO, IT IS INCOM-
PREHENSIBLE TO ME FOR THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR TO GIVE AWAY FORtVER THE
PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO A FAIR RETURN FOR THEIR RESOURCES.
GENTLEMEN, THE TEAPOT DOME SCANDAL PALES IN COMPARISON.
September 29. 1982
Comments: Fort Union Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Submitted fort Solvejg N. Howard (Landowner, Golden Valley County)
11551 Ohio Avenue
Apt. 8 1
Los Angeles, CA 90025
139[
140
141
As a document It leaves
much to be desired. The
to research works, or c
itations for assertions m.
example, on what author
lty are water needs (Fig.
emission rates (Fig. 1-
7, page 47) based?
ge 45) and air
On page 9 there Is a "Typical Fort Union Regional View." This is
misleading. Exactly where is the location shown? As I have seen the
country, Jeffersonlan squares of farmland would be more "typical".
The maintenances of water and air quality are not covered to my
satisfaction. What are the long term costs of groundwater degradation?
By what authority can you dismiss the movement of mine-polluted water as
not a major issue (pp. 103-104)7
Coal leasing should be deferred until the needs for the energy and the
costs and capital come together. There seems no need to lease out
government coal for some persons to use the leases for speculative
purposes.
anged fo
greati
I think the proposals for bidding arc
good for the greatest number" over the next century. And, some futurists
see the United States as becoming even more the breadbasket for everyone.
Careless land and mineral use in the next few decades would, I think.
Jeopardize the production of food. In the meantime, we should be pushing
the development of renewable energy sources: wind, sun, geothermal,
tidal, and the rest. I seriously question the need for such extensive
coal strip-mining as the Fort Union Statement projects.
DATE: September 29, 1982
LOCATION: Clendive, Mont;
Good evening. My name is Marty Holmes. I represent Meridian Land & Mineral
Company in Billings , Montana. I am currently the project supervisor for the
proposed Meridian coal exchange in the Circle West area of McCone County. My
first comment regarding the Fort Union Regional Coal Draft ELS is one to
clarify and
of coal development
he Cn
142
this year we supplied BLM i
felt was the only alterna
which Meridian would have di
■rnative we supplied was a p
facility to manufacture 2.500 tons. 18,000 barrels per day of methanol.
142
plant of this type will
aght change and make methanol i
again in the rul
liable plan.
Any other scenario in the EIS document relating to Circle West, including the
generic 85,000 barrels per day synfuel facilities, are hypothetical for the
purpose of BLM's assessment. We do not see development of this magnitude as
that most likely to occur, and it is hoped the public would keep that in mind
formal plans and with lengthy permitting requirements , coal mines and
in L987 as Table 1-11 in the EIS shows.
143
program in the Fori
cuss poss ible impacts of the leas ing
rently contemplated. It certainly was
2-35
of leasing that the regional
143
"lo
Light
and levels of production comprising
various leasing alteri
the predicted time fri
hope that the public understands that, within t itoe frames p red it
unlikely that corresponding impacts will actually be generated a
resulting impacts is likely to be.
le strongly suggest that the
lining in the region and det.
ard look at the projections for coal
>st realistic level of production for
mate of the level of
143
selected time frames. This should be followed by an e
impacts associated with that production. The final £ IS could uae this as a
basis for comparison when discussing possible production levela from the
various alternatives. This arrangement would clearly put impact levels for
the full level of production for each alternative in perspective to what the
BLH really thinks is going to happen. Everyone reading the document would
likely to be.
I should add that we
competition between re
and expected production.
age leasing levels large enough to pn
On behalf of Heridian. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on
the EIS. We hope BLH will consider our comments. We feel the proper
hypothetical coal development. However, BLH has done the best possible job of
addressing impacts for the production levels chosen ; especial ly when
144
testimony pap the blm hearing in glendive on «*t. sept. •«?
I AM HELL KUBESH AND I HAVE HELPED MY HUSBAND JOHN FARM POD THE LAST 3*. YEARS. ME ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF URGE STRIP i MINES AMD SYNFUELS ON OUR FARM OUR COMMUNITY
*W OUR WHOLE AREA. PTRST, I MART TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR EFPUWTb TO FIND OUT MORE
ABOUT THE EFF HCTS OF SYNFUEL PLANTS CM AIR QUALITY AND PUBLISHING THE AD! QUALITY SUPPLEMENT.
HOWEVER I FIND A GREAT DEAL OF DATA NEEDED TO ASSESS DAMAGES FROM 5YNFUEL PLANTS
ARE UNKNOWN. ESTIMATED FROM POOR BASE LINE INFORMATION, OR CONTRADICTORY, AS IS ACKNOWLEDGED
IN YOUR MODELING STUDIES. ON PAGE s 771' MODELING OF CUMULATIVE I* HR CONCENTRATION, IT
STATES THAT STATE STANDARDS IN BOTH MONTANA ARD NORTH DAKOTA AS WELLL AS THE FEDERAL SEC
ONDARY STANDARD ARE EXCEEDED IN ALL CASES , ,YET OH PAGE S-?7 IT STATES THAT ALLOWABLE CLASS
II INCREMENTS ARE GENERALLY NOT EXPECTED TO BE EXCEEDED. ALSO, ON PAGE S-36 IT SAYS "BASED
OH CURRENT KNOWLEDGE, THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT EMISSIONS OF SOj and NO^ BY PROTECT
SOTJCES WILL CONTRIBUTE ACIDITY TO ATMOSPHERIC OEPOS ITIOH " , AMD OM PAGE S- )7 , "DUE TO THE
SIGNIFICANT SIZE* OF GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION PACrLTTIBS THIS D3 AN AREA OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN AND SHOULD BE MORE CRITICALLY EVALUATED AS MORE STUDIES ARE COMPLETED AND AS
SPECIFIC COAL CONVERSION PROJECTS ARE PROPOSED.* YET ON PAGE S-41 AFTER CONCEDING THAT
MORE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO QUANTIFY THE EFFECTS OF AIR POLLLUTIOM ON WATER QUALITY IS
ATXABLE. THE CONCLUSION WAS (S-4H that INDIRECT EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY
; FROM AD) POLLOTTON WILL LIKELY BE IRS IGM IF ICANT .
,»
THE STUDY OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN COAL FROM NORTH DAKOTA IS REVEALING ONLYjlTHAT ONE YEAR
DISCHARGES WILL NOT CAUSE ADVERSE ETECTS ON ECOSYSTEMS IN A ONE- YEAR SPAN, BUT NO CONCLUSION
WERE REACHED FOR LONGER TERM EFFECTS. IS IT NOT REASONABLE TO EXPECT A CUMULATIVE EFFECT PRC
THE LONG LIST OF TOXIC ELEMENTS? THE EFFECTS OF LEAD, MERCURY, ARSENIC, THE MANY VARIETIES
OF URANIUM, AND fiDIONUCLEIDES ARE AIX KNOWN TO BE TOXIC OR CARCINOGENIC TO ALL LIVING
CREATURES, AND ARE NOT TO BE LIGHTLY BTSMTSSED.
ACID RAIN IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE A NATIONAL CONCERN. WITH MORE THAaY 140 FISKLESS
LAKES IN ONTARIO AND MORE THAN Ml IN NORTHERN NEW YORK, lc>0, OOO In SWEDEN BEING DETERMINED
■O HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY ACID RALN IT SHOULD BE A PRIME CONCERN IN THIS AREA. WITH TH» DIS-
APPEARANCE OF FISH IN THIS AREA ME COULD LOSE A LUCRATIVE TOURIST INDUSTRY. WHILE SOILS
IN THISAREA TEND TO BE ALKALINE AND WILL TOLERATE OR EVEN BENEFIT FROM A SMALL AMOUNT OF
ACID RAD), THERE ES NO CONSENSUS OR EVEN AN ESTIMATE OF WHERE THE DANCER LINE IS.
144
145
YOUR STUDY HAS DEVELOPED A GOOD BASIS TO WORK FROM, BUT ALSO RAISES A GREAT MANY
MORE QUESTIONS. WHILE RADCfHMH 222 and 220 WERE STUDIED AND WERE POUND TO BE DISPERSED (BY
AT LEAST HALT) WHAT HAPPEN* TO THE MANY OTHER URANIUN COKPOUND8 WHICH MERE POUND? AND
THEM THERE WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT THE RADON fOKPOMENT BEING tOtAMSFERfuTD TO THE END
pROiucT or amwjiu: natural gas, would it be transferred then to home gas stoves and
SO MY CONCLUSION IS THAT THERE IS NOT NBA RET ENOUGN HARD DATA TO JUSTIFY ANY OF THE
LEASING ALTERNATIVES EXCEPT (1. THE WHOLE AREA OP S FN FUEL DEVELOPMENT IS ST1LJ, EXPERIMENTAL
AT THIS STAGE OP SIZE AND SCOPE. DON'T TOU THINK THAT THE PELL- -NELL ENERGY SEARCH SHOULD
HAVE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THE NUCLEAR BOOM AMD BUST? NE ARE LEARNING, SLOWLY PERHAPS, THAT
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DO WHAT 15 BEST FOR ORDINARY CITIZENS. AFTER COVERHEMRT REFUSAL TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATHS IN UTAH FROM NUCLEAR TESTING, CAN WE EXPECT MORE? ARE HE, IN THIS
AREA ALSO DESIGNATED TO BE GUINEA PIGS TO FIND OUT THE ANSDWERS TO THE QUESTIONS LEFT
IJNANGWERED? THE IRONY OF THE WHOU MATTER IE THAT A NEW SOURCE OF ENERGY IS NOT NEEDED NOW
OR IN THE NEAR FUTTJRE. OIL COMPANIES ARE WORRIED ABOUT SUBSEDrZED COMPETITION IN A SLOW
MARKET AND COAL COMPANIES ARRE MTjrrMG WORE COAL THAN TREY CAN MARKET. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC •
ALSO WILL BE THE LOSER IF THE PUBLIC COAL ES PUT UP FOR LEASE AT THIS TIME AT GIVEAWAY
PTJTAIXY, I AM REQUESTING A 30 day EXTENSION FOB ADDITIIONAL CO*
HP
X
2-36
IRtNC Morrcri
Irene Moffe
146
onomic section of this E I S draft on agncultur
st the farming profit oT each year for a lease
eration as the only loss is not correct. A fa
This EIS Draft says there will be good reel sm.it
Since no land has ever been released Trom bondi
ed in the state of Montana, I really don't see
put in such a statement.
147
al mining. You keep referring to summer fallowing as an
ample of land not being used. When you summer fallow yo
crease the amount of grain or food energy in the crop ye
mining you just decrease food energy - the energy that
shortest supply on a world wide basis.
So far no o
state. One
reclamation of cropland in
ings for reclamation .s get
147
Last summer in the fort Union Coal Region in North Dakota a
soil to use in reclamation. Vet you state as a fact that
there will be separate removal, storage and respreading of
these soils and the land will be put back together for farm
this on when there is proof that it isn't being done in thi
In your conclusion the first paragraph states "Short term
disturbance would somewhat exceed that acerage presently
left bare annually due to summer fallow. Preliminary ind
tion from completed and ongoing research are that in the
long term agricultural productivity of mined land can be
happened to coal mined land in the past and what else do
r
I I feel that leasing the coal will also commit an btnount of
I water to process this coal. There are pending at this time
I claims for a large amount of water in Montana. (Filings
I under the Montana water adjudication law).
I will submit in writing at a later date the facts and
Dawson Resource Council
149
150
P. 0 Box 686
Glendive, Montana 59330
TESTIMONY OF L£IDA HUBLNG
SEPTEMBER 29, 1982
GLENDIVE, MT
I AM LEIDA E. HUBLNG. MY FAMILY OWNS LANDS WITHIN AND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT
TO THE BURNS CREEK TRACT. I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO REQUEST A 30 DAI' EXTENSION ON
THE WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD SO THAT WE MAY ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE RECENTLY
RELEASED AIR QUALITY STUDY IN REGARD TO THE ENTIRE FORT UNION ErJVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT.
AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND HEARINGS ON THE NEED FOR NEW COAL LEASING IN THE
FORT UNION AREA, THE PUBLIC HAS TESTIFIED THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS LEASING.
I FEEL THAT THIS STILL HOLDS TRUE.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY STUDIES PROVING THAT THIS COAL IS NEEDED. PRESENTLY
THERE ARE ALMOST 20 BILLION TONS OF COAL UNDER LEASE. MOST OF THIS COAL IS
UNDEVELOPED BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEMAND. THIS AMOUNT CF COAL WOULD SEE US DOWN
THE ROAD IS to 20 YEARS, EVEN IF THE DEMAND SHOULD INCREASE.
BUT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE DEMAND FOR COAL SHOULD INCREASE. THERE ARE
MANY REASONS FOR THIS, A FEW OF WHICH ARE;
1) CONSUMERS ARE CUTTING BACK ON THEIR USE OF ELECTRICITY AND WILL PROBABLY
CUT BACK MORE AS THE COST OF ELECTRICITY DECREASES.
2) MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE MAKING USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH
AS SOLAR, WIND, AND WATER POWER.
3] THERE ARE MANY MOPE NATURAL GAS RESERVES AND THERE IS MORE GAS IN THOSE
RESERVES THAN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ORIGINALLY FORECASTED DUE TO
NEW TECHNOLOGY.
2-37
150
151
152
153
#J* THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY HILL MAKE THE EXPENSIVE SYNFUEL PROCESS OBSOLETE IN
THE NEAR FUTURE.
SPEAKING OF EXPENSES, WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT THESE SYNFUEL PLANTS WILL
BE SUBSIDIZED BY OUR TAX DOLLARS. YET, SECRETARY WATT INSISTS THAT THIS COSTLY
DEVELOPMENT IS NECESSARY.
AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, WE RANCH WITHIN THE BURNS CREEK TRACT. IF THIS
DEVELOPMENT SHOULD CCME TO PASS, AND THE FACILITY ON BURNS CREEK IS PLACED
WHERE IT IS MAPPED, If MJST BE REMEMBERED THAT WHILE THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT WILL GRACIOUSLY ALLOW US AS LANDOWNERS OUR TWO BIT COMPENSATION,
PEOPLE ADJACENT TO THIS AREA, OR ANY OTHER AREA SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT, WILL
SUFFER SEVERE NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND RECLEVE NO COMPENSATION AT ALL.
HOW SEVERE THESE IMPACTS WILL ACTUALLY BE IS UNKNOWN AND THAT IS ONE OF
THE BIGGEST FAULTS OF THE FORT UNION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. THE
_BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT HAS NOT DISCUSSED POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF ACID RAIN,
TOXIC WASTES, AIR POLLUTION, OR WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION. PLANNERS PPCMISED TO
■mamaxl THE OFF SITE IMPACTS TO FARMERS AND RANCHERS IN THE REDWATER MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK PLAN. SUCH AN ANALYSIS WAS ABSENT THERE AND HAS BEEN ABSENT
FROM OTHER PUBLICATIONS WHICH PRCMISED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. WE ARE STILL
WAITING FOR THIS INFORMATION.
154
155
156
157
Fort Union Regional E.T.S. Hearing
September 29, 1982
Glendive, Montana
My name is Helen Waller.
I have a few general comments to make.
1. I believe it would be helpful if the author of the various sections
was identified. The reference in the Pack simply states names or firms
but makes no attempt to identify which sections were contracted out to
whom, or which data wae generated internally.
2. I received the air quality supplement nine days ago. Because of
its delay, I would ask that the consent period be extended an additional
50 days.
3. Nowhere in the document is the BN/BLM swap, third alternative
addressed. An environmental assessment of that alternative is neces-
Hy husband, Gordy and I farm and ranch between the Circle West and the
Redwater tracts. We have known since 1975 that our farm, along with a multitude
of others in the HcCone, Dawson, Richland, and Wibaux counties in Montana and
Golden Valley County, North Dakota was included in a Land Use Plan being prepared
by the B.L.K., whose activities would ultimately bring us through a series of
studies and documents leading up to this E.I.S. and on to a scheduled coal lease
sale in June of 198}.
This document is the fulfillment of my every expectation! The quality of
workmanship is consistent with previous publications. It conservatively predicts
probable community tragedy with the usual candor, and draws conclusions
firmly founded on documented "unknowns."
Throughout the planning process, issues critical to the viability of farms
and ranches outside the lease tracts have been raised with the B.L.M, and th
promised to analyze the impacts of Leasing on agriculture in the Fort Union region.
For the record, I am attaching a copy of correspondence with then Secretary
Frank Gregg, and also with Loren Cabe, Economist for B.L.M. in Billings.
157
in March of
19«1,
B.L.M,
ailed me t
they didn't
h.-ivr
the time or money
ly happen tc
farm
and ran
h operatio
ies would b«
conf
ned to
mpacts on
the tracts.
Now
if they
would conf
groundwater disrupt
I could accept their scope of
Despite the fact that th
land use plans to be prepared
'i.|M.tis«i,
vadtng weed seeds/and t<
Mi lee
1 1 • |
> inform me
probl
iat would
1..6.
trac
»
Their
.neheo i.
d
atcly
e. bw
, u
•
r pollutio
ostea
-
lease trac
study. But I doubt that will be the 1
Federal Land 6 Policy and Management 1
on .■» multiple use, sustained yield coi
the fact that the Federal Coal Program requires consideration for Lands which
produce food and fibre, and even though the Federal Coal program also require:
an assessment of the affects of leasing on adjacent, non-federal lands, the
B.L.M. has chose
It's kind of lik
• Instead, they are satisfied to plead,
nking the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, most of the impor-
t impacts to agriculture are not answered in this E.I.S.
Quest I
158
s: How rar from the mines will groundwater be degraded
and in what direction? What are the results of reclamation efforts in the
Union? Can cropland be reclaimed to orininal productivity? What will r,e
impacts of transmission line, pipeline, and railroad rights of way on ranc
operations? What will the effect of air pollution be on crop yield? What
be the effects of toxic waste disposal on water quality? How much land wi
go for cynfuels plants, new county and city buildings, and trailer parks?
What costs must taxpayers bear before the facility comes on line to ease t
burden. These quest ,ons are not answered
lost,
e Fort
that there are
■ many unknowns to evalui
159
farm/ranch operations and cost.
The EIS is full or unknowns.
AjLli £aifl. The EIS contains only
It doesn't even attempt to soy whether
or downwind
acid rain will probably
and where it may show
> E.I.S.
F "off-a
Instead the ELS 1
te" impact might 1
very general discussion of acid rain,
acid rain will be a p-oblem in the regi
n the agricultural "breadbasket" of the country. The ELS says that
«ther the increase will be significant
predicted." Really, it»a anybody's
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
Toxic Wastes. The .- '['■ 4oes not analyze the effects of toxic wastes from synfueln
planta on agricullur- or the general population. Although it describes some
possible pollutants, which are dangerous, (and many are cancer-*ausing) at very
low levels, the BIS giveo no indication of what, or how much pollutants will
come out of synfuels plants. The BLM doesn't know— they simply defer to the
E.P.A. who presently has set no standards, has no plans or budget to do so.
Health effects of Zjntuels Plants. They simply state that "any increased
health costs associated with breathing conversion plant emissions are not well
^documented but could be significant".
Solid Waste. "It 1* still unclear exactly what solid wastes a gasification
plant will produce "
~Air pollution impai-i-. on witgr .[utility. "The 1 n! mr-mot ion necessary to quantify
the effects of air pollution on water quality in the Fort Onion Coal Region is
not presently available."
"Groundwater. "It it impossible to predict accurately how far away from a mined
_area degraded water will move ..."
~Trace r.lcment ■ .
only study going on of trace
plants in North Dakota showed no effects during 1
elusions could be reached regarding the long-ten
coal-fired powei
ie fiscal impacts 01
BLM only figured i
ounty government which
impacts to city hudgeti
of the agricultural
1 know for sure from thi
tnvironmental impacts tc
effects" of arsenic, beryllium,
mercury, and others.
Other unknowns include <
would include school budgets
On the nwjor questions concei
industry in the Fort Ihion region
EIS, is that if leasing takes pla<
This document fails to meet its required purpose as set* forth in the N. E.P.A
regulations. Section 1500.1 B provides that"NEPA proceedures must insure that
environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before
actions are taken. The information must be of high quality." And further
in Section 102 of the Act 1501.2 I' titates "Each agency shall identify environ-
mental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared 1
and technical analysis."
I beli<
thu
iU
. do i
2-38
Meanwhile o' n
Th* Fowder fiver Ui
Watt's revision o^ i
Leasing Law, I- he ■-> i
National Environnioni
f.s evidenced '
one overriding arabi!
ito the hi
■ i : ;<nr1 pertir.ent
:.A- of lost April is bi
Kin rules and regulatio
Mine Reclamation Act, tl
I olicy Act.
» a« I ions of Secretary I
:
i deli
is depressed, knowi
coal production frc
Wyoming mines have
unable to meet ever
Sixteen Billic
not likely to meet
to an administratis
Powder River and For' Union lease sales.
leasee to companies who have not been diligent
quantities of coal ais provided in present law.
ctiona are taking place.
i>- challenged, as well as Sec.
applying to the Federal
Land Use Planning Law and
tt, there appears to be
the valuable public coal
even though the coal market
not available for potential
mple of years, Montana and
Be utilities
' energy industry, evi
g full wrll that markets are ni
exist) r-rj mines. For the past
ecu operating at about 6056 capacity,
minimum contractual agreements.
tons of federal coal are already under lease, much of it
ue diligence requirements. This must be an embarrassment
which in hard pressed to find justification for the
> not prudent to istue
i developing commercio
leither should congresi
relax diligence requ
encourage further abuses
multitude of tracts for i
If Interior is successful in de!
coal reserves, on a -lepreased market
I believe it would be the most notor:
Tea Pot Dome.
That would only sane
Nor is it is the public
le which effectively elioinat
speculation and
to offer a
oopetitive bidding.
i energy companies the public'
iffective due diligence requu
or action since the scandal i
NORTI ERM PI VIMS RESOURCE COUMCIL
"arch 2*. 1979
PO eo'SSo
&lend..e Ml 5«3JO
(406) 365-2525
Mr. Prank Greg*, Tlrector
Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior
1°00 C Street S.V.
Washington D. C. 2021.0
Dear Mr. Cregg,
Thle letter le li
Montana hearing on th<
your willingness to a
and ranchers living li
planning process wMcl
sponse to the request by you at the Billings,
ideral Coal Management Statement. I appreciate
1 me to express the concerns or many farmers
.stern Montana. We simply cannot accept a B.L.K.
«s not realistically deal with the Inevitable
i of coal in
conflict Inherent In promoting the mining and convers!
established agricultural areas.
Preaent law requires that Management Framework Plana be based upon
the multiple-use, sustained yield concept. As I polntad out at your
appaarance In Billings on October 1 7th, 1973 and again at the hearing
on January 2k, 19^9, the major reeource in our area, agriculture, has
been excluded from consideration In the B.L.M. planning process. There-
fore, the area's agricultural resource values are not presently being
Inventoried or aaseeeed, and consequently, because of Its omission froa
the study, thsre le no method by which conflicts between other resources
and agriculture are being resolved, only Ignored. That Is why I contend
that the agricultural Industry already established In coal areas, and
the Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management are on a collision coursel
I would like to make three general points 'afore going on to specific
suggestions about needed change In the planning process.
Point 1^ Data for THa/PAA-SEP/Vf? and EISs must bs gathered and com-
piled with an unbiased attitude toward all resources. This has not been
March Zfl, 1979
Psge 2
the •
1
In the past
My concept of a planning system would require that the various levels
of the plan development be done In an unbiased manner—from the resource
Inventory through the resource analysis, eoclsl consideration, right down
to resolving conflicts and making recommendations. At preaent, the whole
B.L.M. planning process le prejudiced toward the development of the coal
resource. If those responsible far generating and compiling the Informa-
tion necessary for a good plan cannot divorce themselves from their pre-
judice toward coal developmsnt, then they have no place In the kind of a
planning process which I snvlslon as being useful to the declslon-aakers.
If they are willing to approach their responsibility as dsta gatherers,
rather than declelon Justlflsrs, then we are ready to proceed with the
dlscuaalon of thle proposed plan. Cranted that consideration, let ue
Point 2. Agricultural productivity aa a resource value must be in-
cluded and given due consideration along with alnerala, forest products,
range lands, watershed, wildlife, recreation and cultural.
I contend that If the decision has already been made to lsass the fed-
eral coal, regardless of the conflicts, then to go through the expense and
pretense of "planning" and "public partlclpetloo" aakes a mockery of the
deeocratlc process. If B.L.M. is serious sbout wanting to systematically
plan for the multiple-use and eusUlned yield of \
then ALL resources within the planning area must bs considered.
1. Quoted froa
McCone County, Minerals Si
"Objectlvei Protect and maintain those
deposits to assure that these lands remi
leasing and development.
nationals! Projections published by th.
Indicate that the consumption of coal li
1990. fcrpsrts agree that coal can and i
necessary to shift the energy bass of tl
whatever the sew energy base and the ma'
it Is 1 spare tl
Ishell, Haxby, McCone Draft MTP— Step 1.
Emphasis
federally owned landi
oa federally owned surface and privately owned surface
Bureau of Mlsss and other agencies
the United States will double by
st provide a "bridge" and the time
United States froa oil aad gas to
on's pursuit of energy independence,
oai reaourcee on federally owned lands be do;
Please note that while the rationale speaks of
tudy does not distinguish between coal deposits
March 2°i, 1979
luge J
cannot prepare a plan responsibly without examining the agricultural
resource at the same level at which other lsnd based reaourcee are exaalned.
While we agricultural people have repeatedly appealed to district, state
sad national officials, our concerns is this regard, up until sow, have been
ignored. Ve both heard Mr. Kernels on Oct. 17th of last year stats that thsy
would draw on the Centaur report far that Information, but frankly, the
Centaur report does not contain that scope of Information. Please refer to
Appendix "A" fox a critique of that document.
Point 2i Although local B.L.M. officials will deny that they ere plan-
ning far privately owned surface, those of us who have followed the activities
of the B.L.M. find our land, our livelihood, and way of life threatened,
while the reeource values which coal development would destroy are gives no
consideration.
I believe that as we embark upon this revised approach to planning. It
Is mandatory that at the outset of the planning process thsre should be a
distinction sade between publicly owned anrface aad privately owned surface,
regardlees of the mineral estate. The conflict between the rancher— farmer
and the B.L.M. does not arise froa the way the public lands (surface) are
being adslnlstered by the B.L.M., nox in regard to B.L.M. decisions far
minerals underlying public owned surface. I believe that the local B.L.M.
administrators have been good stewards of the public owned surface. They
have shown a consistent deelre to maintain the land's productivity. They
have been good conservationists. They are to be congratulated. Whore the
conflict arises is frca B.L.M. apathy toward and disregard for landowners
who hsvs bought and paid far the surface, devslopsd the farm and ranch
operation to its present capability, established communities which ws
are proud to be a part of, built schools which boast of discipline and
2-39
honor, while upholding a ci
prl««t» property. And ncr.
right, -Ml. alloving--evei
to our detriser+, regardle!
latltution which guarant
•e find an agency of gov>
promoting the c<
» of a legltlmat
right to
Ignoring that
be developed,
e far unacknowledged
public participation!
h the land, which la
conflict— all In the naae of planning, complete wit
Because of agriculture's unique relationship i
aleo In common with the coal resource, we find It lnsultlsg that B.L.M.
should Insist that they axe not planning for private surface. This le
only a technicality that the Bureau is hiding behind. Neither is It
practical nor realistic to divorce the ecosystem on one section of land
from that on the neighboring section. By the nature of our profession,
we deal with reality, and this can be no exception. The fact ie, If
federal coal Is recommended for a lease sale, permitting the coal to
be strip mined, land will be turned upside-down, power plants and gas-
1 float ion plants will be built, railroads and transaleelon lines will
cross our property, water supplies will he diminished or destroyed, and
the remainder of our cropland and graaeland will be polluted to tha point
of questionable economic viability. The results of decisions alaed at
public lands could wield death blows to whole faralng and ranching com-
munities. The potential impacts on private enterprise Bust be Identified
and dealt with fal *y- Unlike the bakery or banking businesses In the
community which are quantified In a socio-economic profile, the vary reaourc*
upon which agriculture depends le in danger of being traded off la the plan-
ning declelona aade by the Bureau.
Those are the basic probleas. I would like to suggest thesa poaslble
solutions.
Following la the step by step approach to planning that I feel is
essential to developing Information for the haaagemant Framework Plan.
Beginning with the resource Inventory level, at which time the resource
values are Identified and inventoried, a new aectloo net be lacladad —
Agricultural productivity. This eectlon would be coapoaad of Information
which la raadlly avallabls.
of lnformatloi
Karen 2^
, 1979
P*ga 5
Subject materia
land
present a
2. lives
3. other
pal
Ully
b.
I. crops
capability
County Assesses
Regional B.L.M. Offlc
County Soil Conservation Dlstrlc
Social attitudes
Present cropland use Inventory
a. cropland acres
t. productivity
Present rangeland ues Inventory
b. livestock numbers
Animal unit carrying capacity of
various land classifications
land Classification
Solla analysis
a. Identify fragile areas
b. identify problea reclalm-
ablllty areas
Proa the above Information, along with current smrket reports, economic
values can easily be computed. Actual Market value of land fluctuates, but
In no way can It be said to be of as little productive value as Is projected
In both the Centaur Report and the computation of values of all agricultural
products sold per acre of land (TABLE H-90) Draft Environmental Statement on
"ederal Coal Management Program.
The agricultural owner /ope rat or consultation should take place as soon
as the split estate ownership \a identified. If landownera are consulted
early, much lnroruatlon essential to good planning and good public relations
would be generated, with much resentment averted. If coordinated properly.
Karch 2«, 1979
Pagm 6
the social studies could be conducted during the aame visits. 1 cannot
stress too emphatically that for the purpose of land use planning, the
factoring down of national or slate statistics Is totally unacceptable.
The gathering of thorough agricultural data Is Justified since this In-
formation 1* essential to making decisions regarding reclaleablllty, areas
Identified as renewable resource lands, prise farmlands, and ultimately in
attempting to resolve conflicts and making recommendations.
The agrlcul*'iral analysis should be conducted unit-wide. Otherwlae those
In a decision-miking capacity will be Ill-equipped to make multiple land uae
decisions. The most coipelllng reason for doing a unit-wide agricultural
analysis, especially in the areas of lover BTU coal is because Industry has
repeatedly declared that because of the low BTU content of the coal, It must
be converted on-site. The pollution from those facilities Jeopardltes agri-
cultural crops and grasslands for many miles around the plant site. All this
Information must be a part of the K.F.P. so that these factors can be weighed
and decisions Justified.
During the analysis of the management situation, with a wealth of
information on all resources previously gathered, an analysis of the aoclal,
economic, environmental, and Institutional values can be made. At the
present time.
these decision
» are being mad
s with
only
a part
eouree ln'araatlon being rem
sldered.
The reeo
urce management
land use plans
ahould
be
[ire [are 1
following con
slderatlons.
Step 1.
Should exclude
all lands wher
naa
IndlcaU
Should Identify and exclude lands unsuitable for alnlng.
Planning area analysis determinations auat be seriously weighed.
St«p 2. Identify the eTecte of a decision on other resources. This
should include an assessment of effectm on non-BIil administered
lands.
Genuine rasow
with careful <
See appendix "P" for a •
. Redwaler Planning Unit Social
Step 3, The resulting land use plans Identify preferred land uses, or
combination of uses far the area and provide factual Informatl
upon which management decisions are baaed.
At this point the K.F.P. is complete and ahould stand on Its own. The
coal activity plan would proceed from here. Decisions aade, baaed upon In-
formation generated for the K.F.P. mould have to be Justifiable. At the
present time we are getting recommendations without Juatlf lcatlon. Past
experience has taught us the danger or broad dlacretlonary authority granted
to unreaponslve, ill-informed officials at any level of government.
I as sure that you have recognised that what I am suggesting In this
revised planning process does not require any change in the law--only In the
administration of that law. The local planners are simply not accomplishing
that which the law already requires.
A word about "public participation". As the M.F.P.a are now being
developed, public participation Is a farce. Instead of having any Impact
on currant activity, we always rind ourmelvee In a posltli
respond to eoaethlng that seems to be permanently cast — tl
funds". Us are simply tired or responding, to no avail, I
Is designed to promote our own destruction.
The HI lea City B.L.M. occasionally comes
laving to
lack of
that
a caravan of cars, pi lea of paraphernal!
convince us that strip mining coal In Kc
They don't come here to llaten to
their actions that are so unfair and repulsl
i to town, about five strong, with
myriads of saps--det«rmlnmd to
County la Just what we want.
They only try to Justify
< us. And than there's the
time they went to Wibaux, ".on tana and later reported to thalr auperlora that
no Interest exists In the -nnni area because no one showed up for the aeetlng.
What 3.L.M. Miles City neglected to report to B.L.M, Washington, Is that the
aeetlng was not announced In the local paper and moat people did not know that
the aeetlng wa< belru; hell!
We hear so much about the developing of our coal reeources being In the
national Interest, I admonish anyone In the declalon-maklng capacity to think
seriously about the preservation of our agricultural lands as alao being In
the national Interest.
2-40
In President. Carter's memorandum
Secretary of Interior to "manage the i
It can respond to reasonable produclli
"here mining Is environmentally a<
uses." ^arainr a-d mining Just d
' fay 2k, 1977, he Instructed the
,1 leasing program to assure that
goals by leasing only those areas
ptable and coBpatlble with other land
t Bill
Since the rules to administer the Federal land Policy and Management
Act are just now being considered for public coaaent, and since they call
for the 2.I.S. to be done in conjunction with the resource plan, and since
those rules require that Impact on uses of adjacent or nearby non-Federal
lands shall be considered, It seems appropriate that now le the tine to
lapleaent this revised approach to planning.
The proposal I have set forth in this letter constitutes only a very
cursory explanation of the problea and only general information about its
Implementation. Should you a^ree to this expanded approach to planning,
I would appreciate an opportunity to Bake further recosaendations regarding
the lapleaentatlon program since the baelc Intent of this plan could be
easily subverted If not administered properly.
Any general lnforaatlon given in this letter can be furnished in
specifics. This Is not an Isolated problem with B.L.N. Many "for instances*
■ere furnlehed to the Dept. of Interior ffo» the Northern Flalns Resource
Council research coordinator, Sarah Ignatius In a letter of January 27, 1978,
accoapanled by s]«clflc complaints fro* N.P.R.C. affiliate aeabsrs through-
out the State.
As farmer -ranchers In Sastem Montana, we hold In high regard the
relationship Me have with our neighbors. It is comnon knowledge in these
parts that we control our property so that the reaulte of our decisions and
actions will do our neighbor or his property no harm. We have been good
neighbors to the Public and the lands administered for the Public, and we
only ask the same consideration In return.
Very truly yours.
United States Department of the Interior
Ms. Helen M. Waller
Vice Chairman
Northern Plains Resource Council
419 Stapleton Building
Billings, Montana 59101
Her:
Thank you for your March 28 letter and enclosures In response to my
request at t'ip filings hearing. Your letter and enclosures have been
placed with the comments we are now receiving on the Department's pro-
posed planning regulations. That portion of your letter which relates
to the regulations is being considered In the development of final
specifically to the regulations from Margaret MacDonald for NPRC dated
March 29, 1979.
raised In your letter :
and compile natural
wards the eventual al-
flnal planning
fully
decli
condoned In BLM.
■ policy for BLM ]
protection proposals
I can assure you that it 1
consider the impact of all
alternatives on both
proven to be overly difficult for our field employees when dealing with
physical and biological resources as a majority of the Bureau employees
are trained in physical and biological sciences. Unfortunately, though,
the Bureau does not have an adequate cadre of competent individuals
trained in applying soc io-economlc Impact analysis processes, especially
in areas of private surface and Federal coal. It is apparent that our
existing standards and procedures are not adequate either. We are
attempting to remedy this situation as rapidly as possible by placing
employees trained In social and economic analysis skills in all of our
district offices. Until we are able to fully accomplish this goal, the
Bureau will be required to continue to emplo1
consulting firms. We recognize, though, that we need to sharpen up our
contract requirements to insure that contractors provide sound unbiased
socio-economic data In their reports.
Because of my personal concern relative to the Bureau's past use of
socio-economic data, I have assembled a special task force to analyze
this area snd provide me with some specific options on how the Bureau
can improve its handling of socio-economic data. 1 expect to receive
this study toward the end of May 1979.
Point 2 - Until the last three to four years. Bureau field employees
have not had extensive experience in planning areas of private surface
underlain by Federal minerals. This situation was changed as a result
of the energy shortage created by the oil produclng-exportlng countries'
(OPEC) oil embargo and subsequent reduction in oil exports to the United
States.
Evidence indicates that the shortage of energy fuels will not subside.
Therefore, as an agency which manages vast acreage of energy fuels, such
as coal, we must plan for the future use of these resources. During
preserved so that our ranchers and farmers can continue to produce
illfficlent food and fiber
The Bureau, in conjunction with the Department of the Interior, is in
the process of developing specific land use planning criteria for areas
underlain by coal. One of the some 23 criteria being considered is the
exclusion of areas from future coal development when coal deposits are
located under prime agricultural lands.
Point 3 - The whole question of planning for future development of
Federal coal reserves underlying private surface continues to be one
of the most difficult problems confronting me. Within the Bureau, we
are attempting to do our utmost to ensure that Individual landowners*
property rights are protected and at the same time plan to ensure that
the nation's future energy fuel needs are met. As you well know, this
is not an easy task and there is no simple and easy answer which will
fully satisfy all concerned parties.
Let me assure you that even though our land use plans may identify an
area as acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing, a decision
to proceed with leasing for coal mining will not be made unless (1) the
Secretary decides on a coal program Including a competitive leasing
element, (2) if such a decision is made, an adequate assessment of the
environmental and socio-economic impacts of potential lease tracts are
fully analyzed, and (3) the surface owner consultation and consent pro-
visions (Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act) and planning
requirements (Federal Land Policy and Management Act; Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act) are fully met. In this regard, the Bureau
considers the public sector, from both a local and national perspective,
as an important and necessary contributor to the planning-declslonmaklng
One of my goals as Director of the Bureau of Land Management Is to
perfect a planning process that fully considers natural as well as socio-
economic values In a rational and systanatlc fashion. Such a system must
fully consider the desires of landowners and local communities and
governments in balance with regional and national needs. I feel our
proposed planning regulations are headed in the right direction, although
they still need some refinement. We hope to publish these regulations
during June 1979.
In closing, I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the thoughts
Sincerely youri
irector %/"*l I
2-41
MCP.TI 'I PM PLAINS RISC iURCE C( UhCII
JM / 'MO
Mam OM,ce
4l9$rapl«ionBldg
BilUqi Ml 5Ch.il
(406) 3«9- IIS*
Montana State Hi'l
Bureau of Land Mn
PO Box 30157
Billings, MT ;..)]
The northern Philns Resource Council ha.
a few swr.estions and
to make concern 1 t\c. the draft Requests r
Economic Analy.iin and Social Attitudes
urveys. We appreciate
opportunity to |.e involved in the activ
ty planning process eal
rather than having to react to decision
already made, as has
the case all l„„ often in the past.
DESCRIPTION AND J_"ECIFICATIOHS: FORT UNION ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (section
General: Economic impact should include impacts of transmission line
right of voy. pipeline right of way, the tipple and other nine faclllt
(in addition to the mine area), and railroad right of way.
:_ be collected for
>le to guoge offsi'
ore than Just each mine area ,
impacts. Agricultural inventory
(i.e. the Redvater planning area).
Employment i
from an agrl
development i
■i-mation should be noted bj_ economic sector — it i3 po
lural point of viev, to measure the aggregate effect
•■mploynent without considering what Is happening in i
' (agriculture, government, service, etc.).
The contractor ihould also provide an estimate of boom-related i
{"mlneflation"). This inflation will uniquely Impact agrlcultur.
alone will haw- to absorb all of the Increased costs with no coi
Increase in r. v.-nues for agricultural production.
iity of Montuin,
b.ti.l: This should specifically Include air qual
factor. Sources of information could in. lui ■
Laboratory and Environmental Studies Library at tic
and sources that the LaI> might suggest -
k.k.Si This is vague. It seems to imply that the contractor is to
perform all manner of research and studies that are currently lackinp.
While this would be desirable, it is obviously Impossible. We would
like to know Just what this section calls for on the part of the
U.U.3: Why isn't part C requ
made unprofitable by the lmpac
adjacent facility is Just &9 m
business by the impa
s much out of product!
ither development oloo
An operatloi
nose of an
i put out of
i a factor of
of facility waste
b.k.3.1: This section should specifically include aii
production. Land should specifically Include so 1 1 3 , &i
not Just surface area. Water should Include surface wi
■ay change due to mine run-off, sedimentation, seepage
water or solldr and'or the seepage $r cog tarsias ted aquifers tnte surface
water), aquifer disruptions and consequent groundwater looses, groundwater
qual 1 ty degradation, disrupted groundwater tables and realigned groundwater
flows (which may result in flooded land, saline seep, or other problems).
All of these are measurable, more or less predictable, and vitally affect
agricultural economic viability.
It. It. 3.2: "Direct Disruption" must be defined so as to Include surface
required for associated facilities (tipple, storage, etc.) vhieh normally
occupies a greater acreage than that actually mined. If failure to Include
indirect disruptions means ignoring aquifers disrupted, polluted, or destroye
by mtnlr.g and the Impact on aGriculture. U is totally senseless. Such
disruptions must he included.
k.U.3.3:
elude factor competition (capital, lal
agriculture depends. Labor i
an Implement dealer, a bank,
which supply agriculture. Tl
h depend on agriculture, or on whlrh
>9ts, for example, will be passed on by
i grocery storu. or any other enterprise:
s will increase the costs of production
lculturol operators, unaccompanied by Increased agricultural
,d will therefore mean lower returns to the agricultural
Appendix 3
Agricultural impacte (#3): The definition of 'taking' of water should
Include degradation of water quality, since polluted water la no more
useful than no water at all to an agricultural operator. (A mining
company may. in aome cases, "replace" an aquifer with n deeper well.
If the loss of the aquifer is proven by an agricultural operator.
However, the pumping costs for that deeper well would be greater.
adding to the agricultural operation's costs. This is a direct
Impact to agriculture from mining.)
DEGREE OF QUANTIFICATION AND FORM OF ANALYSIS
draft if the fictitious examples used
e agricultural dollar are intended to
h a breakdown Is part of
While it is unclear from tl
regarding the breakdown of
be roughly representative,
the information to be contracted or yet to be determined by hlM, It
should be pointed out that a standard figure for multiplication of the
agricultural dollar through a rural community Is much higher than
that indicated by the example. How will this multiplier be determined?
It should be determined for each community. If possible.
The use in the example of
Is there an actualti/unplc
a mined area that BUM knoi
consolidated farm operatli
"relocated" farmers seas very far-feti
of such a relocation and "consolldatloi
s of! Doea "consolidated operations" i
ns? If so, (l) the contractor would hi
I displaced family farms (o
lomlcally amenable to cons!
remaining portions thei
it Ion, notwithstanding <
disruption: (2) the contractor would >
of the consolidated operation to suppt
would have to analyze the likelihood i
to demonstrate the abi
' foremen*: and (3) the <
a displaced farmer or i
would want to b,e a foreman", once he Is displaced: such
arrangements do not substil.lt for a family -owned farm, economically i
otherwise. Much or the economic return of the family farm operatloi
comes from the "psychic income" of passing on an opernllon to futun
generations, an Income lost under the "forcjson" concept.
CAPS in the contract:
Agricultural prices: The draft s
assumptions will be used to proje
farm Income. These are critical
ys nothing about what data and
t baseline trend and post-Impact
o the results of the study. Farm
income fluctuates sharply from year to yeor, and very misleading
results could be obtained ir data from certain years, or from too
limited a period of years, is used to project form Income.
How will the results of the contracted i
between yourself and NPRC stafr at the a
Cool Team meeting, it is clear that many
less real) factors exist: low level, lc
applicable standards; disrupted aquifer;
fields, and numerous other offstte lmpac
udy be usedT From conversatl<
ist recent Fort Union Regional
"unquantlflable" ((hough no
ig-term air pollution, within
the Impacts of tmsmU
s. These Impacts are s.
lin
thn
) obtalr
i agricultural productivity, but data is mis
or is not readily subject to quantiflcatlo
lng, difficult
While difficult
It is possible t<
publication of Ji
sympathli
e quantification certainly exist, and while
with those fneed with the problems involved
tlfiable data, without thorough explanation
be extremely misleading— indeed. It could
c Impact assessment.
Similarly, a county-wide approach, measuring net economic impact to
the entire economy is meaningless to the existing agricultural economy.
The county wide income In the Rock Springs. Wyoming area Is doubtless
2-42
Indued, the entir
Loren Cabe, paye five
July 1, I960
the agricultural sector la almost certainly Lo1
pre-grouth economy may be worse off. Impact by_ economic sector is ouch
more Important than an aggregate net result. Furthermore, even the
aggregate analysis must include an assessment of the impact on real
Income per capita in the area.
It should be noted that many impacts which are being considered as
'unquantiriable' are the subject of some quantified anulyuis. In regard
to air quality impacts, for example, see the Montana Ambient Air Quality
Standards EIS, which cites several studies and reports which include
general or specific estimates of yield losses for many crops and range
grasses from various levels of several types or pollutants. We believe
It would be a mistake to completely dismiss the impact of degraded air
quality on the agricultural economy as "unquantlfiable", and to give
only a qualitative analysis.
SOCIAL ATTITUDES AND QUALITY OF LIFE.
How will the "community leaders" be selected?
Will the level of awareness of the respondents he analyzed in relation
to the types of responses? That is, will the contractor or the study
team determine If those more informed and familiar with Impact issues
have different attitudes than those less informed on and familiar with
Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate at this stage
In the process. We hope these comments can be used to design the most
credible and useTul studies. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Helen Waller, NPBC Chain
l en pie
Far
M2j curiam ic
M~^rut*resi
169
1- The resources, c
2. The energy compa
ter are available
indicated their i
st in developing
I*. The preat majority of people in McCone County would like to see so
of this coal developed.
I would like to quote fron- an article in the Billinps Gazette, Sept.
27, 1982. "Colstrip Units 1 h l\ will generate a lot of electricity
in a few few years-but for no**, they're peneratinp more jobs than any
other sinple Montana project
One problem with this coal leasinp procedure, is that it takes too
lonp I sincerely hope, that if for some reason economic or court
delays nushes this lease sale nast the 1<»M deadline, we do not have t
po hack and start countinp mice and so forth T do helieve we have do
enouph of that sort of thinp.
People for Economic Prepress members would like to thank the coa
team and all involed for the effort thev have put into this proi
j,w'-- ;<U
M€MO
CITY / COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE
MILES CITY / CUSTER COUNTY
516 MAIN
MILES CITY / MONTANA 59301
(406) 232-6339
2, 1982
• Aauitanl Planner
Dear David
You and I ai
■ development of 1
all
r hopes for growth on natutal resoun
y resources". If that sounds bold,
article "Hontanans and Economic Groi
from The Montana Poll . I quoted din
plays its pari
ces, most especially
:hat Poll, Dc. Maxine Johnson, reported research. As directo
:he Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Dr. Johnson kno
:his state's economy. The poll says 911 - 91% - expect the
:he article, they say that while many of us think environment
acting responsibly, "They go overboard. Too extreme. They
note moderate and not bog things down". A typical reaction
n Montanans.
In other works, I
around ISft of total labor :
will make an important coni
report. The 1
rou) that 8ft, a very small group, oppose development.
favoring coal development is ?7ft. Support for gasification
That report states that the folks in McCone County are
■ of the lack of job opportunities near home. "Coal" will
know the market is "soft" right now. "Soft" for cattle,
>al; "sagging" for workers. But we have to go on with ran
irming and families and coal. The USA has a great future.
■ must balance1 our foreign trade. Making them rich has m
For coal, in particular reclamation, there are stringent regulatii
Montana is tough on the coal industry. We should be tough. And,
we should befeic. Tough but fair.
tfS £**#***/
2-43
MAXINF C JOHNSON AND SUSAN SELIG WAFFWORh
Montanans and Economic Growth
Attitudes toward growth: Mill
overwhelmingly favorable, but
expectations have fallen
• Montanani oim.hHmmel.
endorse at Iran a moderate
ihr -lair .» the near luiurr
• In June 1381. si In* hall Dl
il,.,.. polled fell Ihj. Ihr VI. .n
wdl or rMirmrl. well That
proportion is down 10 onr-ihird
lodan
• Respondents
t ?nv.
• Those pxlled lirnrrjlli nrwrd
ul «mu|» ii holding back
• Honianaiu air ahum event*
split as 10 whether mjj.ii
• Monuiu Poll ratulU now and a
year ago indicate Oil I Mon-
ItiMui in mt; ciimili who
helps and who hinders?
i ihme polled general h
methinp hate changed tinrr a ptniidiml. j moderate j moor
-notably Monianant naluaiion growUi wti l hi new i...
k .„'i... ihfluniir In June *p.irol ihr current problem. 11
lra»i hall ol ihoie polled lett rhji area, Win MnnuiuiH .hjtr
i I~hai|
badly ot .er. b*ll. Inu
11 M) pereenl nl the responder
Labor unions rm ihc mhrr hjnd i
S » "^ "T ^7
Tabic 2
^L V. SLS.
Table 5
SaL B- -™- ■*=- -^
iii i in ir, nidi, nul lundiUdl "hrii
■ii negative imp,.. rDngl
ttlopmmi in pj ,Iji 11,, i go
.ir moderate and hot; ihingi
«1mii im.kini: il.rn.mJv I... »..«.■. .,nd
stinking mndiuotu and an- no. taking Minrd big buHITCU » acting
nmduiontaridihrrranainv in general |M„,,i,. „„. i,„„ ,i,. i..,,^. „ ...
<>.,. „.,.ln,ir..i summed ii up ihii was ,„
rhn lurpatliriK i omudi . Political prefa i tp<
si.iLrxhun ihr rnnrr reonoms I..,, ihr .„ ,u , ,,,
and i o ■ Growth Johnson and Wellvoi
ftq I"..... .11.1 l.llxr IHl.i,
\ i hanging political
Growth .mil the quality ol life
MONTANA BUSINESS QUARTERLY Autumn 1982
lives, rnpondenu wtrt slightly less than Ii
jiiaiiic. A small major! iy agreed ihr wo
i ,l.l..,..(h
2-44
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & A G R I C IHTtfR^riTC^ <?—^
\jlasgowABAv
BOX 832 GLASGOW MONTANA 5923
September 22, 1982
A natural function of any Chamber of Commerce is to promoi
the growth of its community and to welcome new business ventu:
within the area it serves.
It is with this purpose in mind we offer our supj
Circle Chamber of Commerce in their endeavor to secure the ve:
desirable complex known as Circle West to locate near their c
in McCone County.
An important part of the developers plan calls for the sei
of coal leases on land controlled by the U.S. Government. We
our voices to those who are petitioning your agency to allow
leasing of this land, with the pleasant consequences of turni
a rather non productive area into one offering many jobs and
sundry benefits accrued from planned venture by private capit
Hand, President
0
resourcesSmc.
Lloyd Emmons
Project Manager
Fort Union Proje.
- Mr. Emmons
The following comments reflect the views of Wesco Resources, Inc. on tl
Draft E1S for the Fort Union coal region. Our comments for the most
part will be directed only to the areas considered for leasing In the
Circle area which Is the area designated in Wesco's expressions of
w*
ore Wesco presents Its specific comments, there are some areas that
have noticed that should be corrected. These are:
170
1. Page 19 - Bedwater Tract 11. The surface map legend key
is incorrect. State and Private Surface color key indications
should be switched.
171
2. Page 91 - The picture showing mule deer should reflect either
western North Dakota or eastern Montana, not western Montana.
172
3. The State Legislature action found In Appendix B pages A4
and A5 should reflect the proper legal cites to the new
Montana Codes Annotated and not R.C.M. 1947.
173
k. In the References section page R-l, there Is no mention
of the study done by Weatech of Helena on the wildlife in the
Redwater area. The report was finished and sent to the Miles
City BLM in December of 1981.
of
Fo
ef
following comments are specific comments on the draft itself. First
all, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to comment on the Draft
t Union Coal Region EIS. To say the least, it ia a massive undertaking
Wesco Resources, Inc. compliments the BLM and its staff for their
orts.
Me
co's following comments are In relation to the EIS and its application
the McCone County area where the Circle West tracts and the Redwater
Lloyd Emmons
Page 2
September 29, 1982
tracts are located. As the BLM Is aware, Wesco has been involved In
this area for the past nine years. Wesco has cooperated with the BLM
along the entire leasing process and even before the area was to be
considered for the upcoming competitive federal coal leasing. During
this time. Wesco has seen the plans for the BN owned Dreyer ranch change
from a fertilizer from coal process to a synthetic diesel fuel project
to the latest proposal which Involves a coal exchange with the BLM. The
proposed exchange presents a problem for Wesco, and ue feel It is an
Improper action on the part of the BLM to Include the proposed exchange
in the EIS process at this late date, especially when the BN, like
Wesco, has expressed its Interest to have the coal leased. There is
nothing in the EIS that speaks to the leasing target and the effect the
exchange would have on the replacement of tonnages if the proposed
exchange Is completed. It also seems improper to continue to consider
the exchange when there has not been a determination of whether or not
the exchange is In the public Interest. It would follow, too, that the
legal Issues that may exist with the exchange should also be addressed
-1 ^t A
before the Impact of the exchange is addressed in this EIS document.
174
To elaborate on these points and for the record, Wesco opposes the
proposed coal exchange for the following reasons. When the EIS addresses
the end use of the coal and says that a synthetic fuels plant will be
available for two plants on the two resulting 350 million tons blocks of
coal, it fails to consider Montana's stringent plant siting laws and the
rural nature of the area. Montana would probably not allow the siting
of two plants in close proximity to each other. The EIS also falls to
recognize that a synthetic fuels plant cannot economically exist unless
it has la excess of 500 million tons of coal. In fact, the plant being
constructed In North Dakota has in excess of one billion tons of coal reserves.
If only one plant can be sited in the Circle West area, how does this
benefit the public?
Wesco recognizes that many of these concerns are being addressed In the
document to be done by the Miles City BLM District Office. However, it
would seem to be more prudent to have the key legal issues and the
public Interest test addressed before the public pays to do a separate
study as well as consider the exchange possibility in the Draft EIS,
especially if these Issues throw the exchange out of further consideration.
The Fort Union Coal Team has concluded that Alternative 3 is the preferred
-1 —IC
alternative which includes the coal subject to the proposed exchange.
1 #T
There is no discussion of what happens to the leasing target if the 350
1 ff <*S
million tons is exchanged. In other words, would other tracts not
presently included in the final leasing target be made available for the
_coal lease sale?
176
In Wesco's opinion, the ranking of the tracts and the reasons given for
Lloyd Emmons
Page 3
September 29, 1982
ranking the Redwater tracts low in comparison to the Circle West tracts
are unjustified. Wesco conducted a survey of the Circle area attitudes
toward coal mining in the summer of 1980. Development was favored
1 ~1(2
across the entire county by nearly 90% of the sample. The discussion
1 /o
about the Redwater River and the potential damage to It by mining the
m. m ^J
is aware of that the Redwater River is used for crop irrigation. In
also understand that the water quality is very poor.
Wesco believes that the BLM's approach to predict what the end use of
the coal will be Is a mistake. In the not too distant past, there was a
study done called the North Central Power Study. This raised Intense
177
energy and power development. The economic constraints to synfuels
development as well as the lack of demand for lignite coal power generation
makes the projected use estimates literally useless and misleading. In
Wesco's opinion, the presence of abundant water for industrial use and
the presence of significant coal reserves makes the Circle area attractive
primarily for synthetic fuels development.
The socio-economic impacts to Circle would be great whether Circle West
or the Redwater area were developed. Wesco does not believe, however,
that the Circle West site has a lesser Impact than the Redwater area on
1 7ft
Circle. Since the Redwater tracts are nearer to Circle, many of the
1 /O
necessary social services are near at hand. At least under initial
development, while the impact may be great to Circle, Wesco believes the
proximity of the in place social services would favor the Redwater area
over Circle West.
Wesco does not hold Itself out as a reclamation expert, but more data
would have to be made conclusive to show that the Redwater area is more
difficult to reclaim than the Circle West area. Wesco believes the
1 7Q
contrary Is true because of the nature of the terrain which is mostly
1/^7
rolling dry land wheat production and grazing. The fact that the Redwater
area has crop lands should not preclude it from development, especially when
consents where the landowners have given permission to surface mine the
1 nn
coal. Nothing is mentioned in the Draft EIS about how the landowners
lOU
who have given their consents to mine would be affected by the proposed
exchange. There is nothing discussed about the terms of the two coal
1 Q1
reservations that exist in the BN and federal patents. Since the two
1 O 1
coal reservations are different, in what manner and how would they be
exchanged?
Wesco would like to take exception with the statement made on page 73
1 ftv
regarding the Redwater tracts. Rationale was given by Wesco at the
1 0<£
regional coal team meeting and at other meetings for inclusion of the
Redwater tracts In the preferred leasing alternative. Wesco did not agree
2-45
Page U
September 29.
182
183
Coal Team
i Justify leaving the Bu
ve and ignore tracts of inn
especially when It Is appan
the leasing process.
,al thought Is t
River Coal Regi
that have valid
al le.
preferred leasing alti
in,' process itself. Applying Che
le procedures of April 28. 1982, ynly thos.
es the same will be true in the Fort Union region. There-
harm is done if all the designated tracts are put up for
n the Powder River sale, the initial leasing alternative
1.4 to 1.5 billion tons. The Secretary picked the ma.i-nun.
made all the tracts available for leasing. When the sale (
racts dropped out because of refusals to consent, and two
lved no bids. The result was the leasing of the original
To |
, lude
fo
sing and noi
hat those
■
rep
lace
tonna
..■>
hat wo
ild drop
out or re
eive
s. pot en
ales. E
tlally affe
the
lie
fedc
ompct
al
easing
attemp
ted in fed
ral
al Team
g intere
ri«:°iTJ:i
les
of t
o cle
y of
tllL-
tiv
If
leasing, espe
the tracts can
easing, no
t ranking
-lally una
flear the
*
ability
process and
.r-
.,-■.!
lable
for
leasinc, thev
should be
in the
d the
e and t
le interes
cd
s should
decide uli.-l.hct
or r
ot th
cr
.cts ar
J leased
Resource
s, Inc. app
-eel
ates
the opoor
unity
o offer
„„„.
Yours
very tr
Jiy.
WESCO
RESOURCES. INC.
By '■
NORTHEPM PLAIMS RESOURCE COUNCIL
*6c*f
Box 85H
Helen*, MT 59H01
(406) 44J-4965
Muta Office
419 Staplcion Building
B gs, Ml 50101
HUli) 248-1164
Field Office
Box 886
(jlcndivc. MT 59330
(40*>( 365 2526
i Taylor, Wolf Point.
184
185[
186
187
Testimony of Glen and 1
Se^jtember 29, 1982
Glendive, rtmtana
Fort Union EIS
He ranoi on Prairie Elk, north of the Circle West tract discussed in
this EIS. To start with, we don't believe the coal lease sale is needed.
Tiiere isn't any demand for the coal — for production, anyway. It seems
to us that the only result of tliis lease sale will be speculation by energy
<xt\jaiu.es. A couple of companies will tie up the coal, just as oil has
oeon tied up by a couple of companies.
And, as taxpayers, we object to the government selling the public coal
to these companies for what will probably be bargain-basement prices.
also don't believe this EIS discusses all the impacts of coal leasing
and synfuels development on agriculture and on our communities.
There is a possibility that development of the Circle West tract will
mean a railroad up Prarie Elk — through our ranch. The EIS doesn't
tell us anything about how this would affect us, how much it would add to
our operating costs, or whether we could still operate at all with a
railroad through tlie place.
rif the coal veins in circle West, which are our aquifers, Are ripped up,
we stand to lose our wells. The EIS says that the mining companies
would have to replace them. But with what? Hew much would we have to pay
187
188
for extra pumpiny costs for deeper wells? Where are the deeper aquifers
to replace our wells? What is the quality of that water? How can we
prove damages to the wells we're using now, when the BIM hasn't got data
on the quality arr'. quantity of aquifers that will be affected by mining?
The EIS makes compensation sound real easy, but we don't know how we'll
make out taking a multinational corporation to court to get it. The
Interior Department has been up against these companies in court, so they
sinuld know how tough that is.
The EIS says workers will commute to Circle West from Glendive and Circle,
by taking Highway 200 to Flowing Wells, and then taking highway 24 and
a couple of miles on a county road. That's a 46 mile trip from Circle.
We think they'll take the Horse Creek road instead, since it is about
15 or 16 miles. The EIS should have analyzed the impacts to that road,
not ]ust higliway 200 and 24.
190L
impacts to agriculture from this lease sale will be "miniscule".
We can't afford several thousand people in Circle — that's too much
all at once. With that kind of a boom, the type of people who will be coming
in, we wouldn't want our kids going to Circle.
We can't afford a railroad through our place, or to lose our wells, or
bo have our cattle poached or our town flooded with construction workers.
The taxpayers can't afford to have BLM dump public resources on a soft
coal market. We can't affocd it, and we don't need it. Thank-you.
189
The LIS also doesn't figure that anybody working at Circle West will live
at Wolf Point. That seems short-sighted — probably a lot of people would
live in Wolf Point. If they do, they'll take the shortest route to
Circle West — on the Prairie Elk Hoad, right past us. Are we going to
have to deal with vandalism, theft, and poachers? Can we have school
children and cattle out on the road with a stream of traffic pouring each
way on that road with every shift at the mine and the plant? How is it
going to affect our ranch to have a major traffic artery going through it?
190[
■ EIS doesn''
<w how BLM c
talk about these kinds of costs to agriculture. We don'1
ignore these costs, and still conclude in the EIS that
2-46
191
192
<5^-^^"
^C*6*u <? «
193
194
195
September 28, 1982
Mr. Chairman i
In May, 1982, I attended your public meeting in Glendive,
Montana. I asked you at that time what you would do. if your
boss ordered you to make a decision regarding Fort Union coal
development which was contradictory to the wishes of the
majority of the people as expressed during your public meetings.
Your response was that you would do whatever your superior told
you to do because you want to keep your job. This indicates to
me that public input is of no consequence in the final analysis.
Your own coal team recommendation of development was 400, MB
to 800, Off) ton on May 28, 1982. Iassume that this recommendation
came from public input. However, on August 28, Sary Corruthers
indicated that the tonnage would be 300-,««'*to l,2billionJ#V.
This overrode public input and changed the choices in tracts
to be used for development. It appears that all the tracts
must be used, so what is the point of public input in the EIS?
Is there a proven need for this development—what study
substantiates a need? I believe there are federal leases for
■•8, 000, 000 acres, mostly undeveloped, and apparently there is
no need at the present.
I would like to comment that I feel water is a critical
element to be considered in this development. According to a
report from the state of Montana, there are only approximately
*2,000 acre feet of water in the Yellowstone River for UBe in
development. How much water do you plan to use?
If the development proceeds according to your plan, there
will probably be no further need for the BLM because we will have
reverted back to the great American desert.
,7 yv^\'\M\~-
L.M. Moline, D.D.S.
A
(tick &**J.
196
197
198
07 ^r-T
/<A-4'A.v St J*k-* •"y/l
2-47
198
199
jta.
-U^< ^77^7.
* -^ <v ,
y
200
_ •**~</-***rf«. ,^
. 'J "i'UA
y^
, ■ ^^r^E^aj gSg^g?^
CIRCLE
CHAMBER
o/
COMMERCE
AGRICULTURE ,
.CIRCLE, MT.
59215 y
October 4, 1982
Kr. David Darby
iroject Manager, Fort Ir.icn lro.,ect
Sure u of Land i.anage ent
Billings, Kont.
Dear ;.r . Darby :
r e circle C ainhei of Commerce arid Agricult
201
Tteie a:
..e feel
ranking.
o currents t..at we uave at this tii
the Kc Cone county tracts should
The other is we sin
does not^fhc leasin
special interest gr ujj.
Sincerely
iv. ^
Dove Kasten
(resident
DEPARTMENT C
THE* LIE IN
: EASTERN HONTAHA AREA I
COAL TVCTS IK KcCONE <
/f£^' -sk^
-£
>w7"
.fr^y >r~
^
-p>
&»*£.*f 3&=£
i/JZ 7w
- w <
c-~**j£
l»*
T^Z.
■&*
&F1/W1: tpr.
O.nl, J^C-
//jJ-
m*&:
y^-^w
ZZtZt ^^^
•?i<<->+f~
/U^-eJi
■fe^-l?^
• "f »-«■
WE. THE UHDERS ICHZD RESIDENTS OF THE EASTERN MONTANA AREA URGE THI
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR TO LEASE THE COAL TRACTS IN McCOKE COUNTY t
.4 . *u— C7 _
O^.fl. ,.
^t^ >»./
G^_& "Hi*.
^^ »a^
.A.nJ.*y AI7-
2-48
JJ-^Wd-Q
~£Cjt.
. TRACTS IN *cCOHE C
1LE WATER AND COAL
&■*/*? >v..--,~
xr^^^rfrS^-
-UwC ^~« I
■ tf.W-N
?•'<:■
.-/'.,■ ?7*
5*
^
-^
■->.
$*<
v mimm i,l of the Int.
i Wjw- (legion
202
203
204
To: State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana
rom .$? *pnion«l Oi rector. Bureau of Reel ana t ion, Billings, Montana
'ironmentat statement { DES) and have
On page 105 of the DES. the Bureau of Reclamation was erroneously named
as a participant in the preparation of the state of Montana Department
of Natural Resources and Conservation (ONRC) report. Me furnished the
operational study model with caveats and the inflow data. The assumptions
made thereafter are theirs.
On
you i
the same page, average and minimum annual water availability figures
no the Yellowstone River at Sidney, Montana, were extracted from the
.ft DNRC report and not the final report dated May 12, 1982. We suggest
the r
i gun
In thv
al
Tt
al
availability" of water was not included and we suggest that this quantity
be deleted or, at least, fully explained in the subject OES by listing all
the depletions. When the "average annual availability" figure is revised.
care should be taken in distinguishing between the average and the median
quantities. The Bureau estimates that 243.000 acre-feet could be nade
available annually out of Yellowtail without affecting existing or likely
future uses.
On page 7 under the cultural features issue, second paragraph, the first
sentence mentions that two sections of the Dunn Center tract fall within a
district which has been declared eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. On page 24 the surface ownership map of Dunn Center
indicates that approximately three sections of the proposed Knife River Flii
Quarry National Register District are within the tract boundary. This
discrepancy needs clarification.
Specific Analysis do !
He understand as many
inclusion into the Na
204
ions of the regional DES and Dunn Center
oint out the significance of these resou
4 other sections have been considered fo
1 Register of Historic Places on or near
Dunn Center tract as well as the three sections mentioned. In light
of this knowledge, more than just an all or none programmatic approac
to lease is needed in order to comply with the CEQ regulations, secti
1502.14, concerning alternatives and mitigation measures. For exampl
tracts might be leased excluding sections with significant features
and the impacts analyzed accordingly.
the
The
1e
:ad agency in preparing the EIS for the proposed Dunn-
Nokota Coal-to-Methanol project which would use coal from one of the
tracts being considered for lease. The scoping session for this project
revealed cultural resources in this are* arc nationally significant and
were a major concern of many participants. It would be helpful if this
issue is resolved before our draft statement on the plant is distributed
so we can adopt the 8LH document without needing to supplement the coverage
of this topic.
If you have any questions or which to disci
contact Mr. George Walker (FTS 585-6605) ii
Affairs.
<Z^
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
of Land Management.
Uraft
Supple
The Fisn and "wildlife Service (F*S) has reviewed the subject document as well
IS a iociated 8LM documents pertaining to the Fort Union Coal Region OEIS. A
offer the following consents for your consideration. Many of tnesf comments
were previously provided to your staff in June. 1982, following a review of
tlie preliminary OEIS. These comments are submitted in accordance witi our
lecnorandum of Understandiny (MOU) on coal, the national BLM/FIJS MOU and coord
nation responsibilities under the Federal Coal Management Program (FCMP).
These comments have also been j,ri.yared under the authority and in accordance
witn tne provisions of the Fish and "Ji ldli fe Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401.
as amended; 16 U.S.C. et seq.). They are alsj consistent with the intent of
tne .National Environmental Policy Act.
Gei ler a 1 Comments
This DEIS disc<JSs:_>s the proposed leasing of 7 production maintenance/by-pass
and 17 new production coal tracts in eastern Montana and west-central itorth
Dakota. Tnese tracts involve tne leasing of federal coal administered by the
BLM to ne^t the leasing target of 0.8 to 1.2 billion tons of federal coal
established by the Secretary of the Interior.
Under this DEIS, 6 coal leasing alternatives were con
the Regional Coal Team (RCT). In addition, the Woods
Application (PRLA) and Meridian Exctunge Proposal wer
tion with alternative 3. The RCT preferred alternati
ified by removing the Central Bloomfield
dered and evaluated by
i Preference Right Lease
considered in conjunc-
TlM
alt -r
liable tor leasing.
did i
>\- ■<:,:.
i ton
2-49
205
we unJi_-i ri t-ind that it would be difficult, unnecessarily expensive and very
time consuming to provide the public witn a comprehensive, complete DEIS that
included information provided in other BLM planning documents pertinent to
the Fort Union Coal Project. However, we believe it would be beneficial to
include abstracts or summaries of certain information, if available. By
memorandum dated April 29, 1982, (copy attached) this office responded to
BLM's Addendum Document on the West-Central North Dakota Management Framework
Plan and application of unsuitabi 1 lty criteria. A Decision Document was
subsequently issued in August, 1982. We believe that wildlife information now
available from this document and counterpart documents for Montana should be
Summarized and incorporated into the final EIS. Specifically, acreages of
wildlife habitats affected by the unsui tability process versus total acreage
of wildlife habitats should be discussed in both Chapter 2 - Affected
Environment and Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences.
fce.
flC Comments
under the heading, Assumptu
206
207
208
iing
ith i
al
rong bas
oj - To "assume that post-
ing use", in our opinion is
lysis of the impacts
es. It can be shown
ve rangelands
fac
Idlife Resoi
in North Dakota that most wetland!
destroyed during mining of privately owned surface are be
cropland. Your analysis on page 48, under the heading, W
alludes to this It is stated: "Wetlands, woodlands and
destroyed during mining would be restored or replaced unl
with the lawful desires of the surface owner."
, under the heading. Special Tract Stipulations (Wildlife I
•xpanded to include appropr
packages, including constraints that .nay be placed on potential lease
areas prior to the competitive lease process. Such constraints should no
be delayed to the mine permit stage. It is recommended that a mutually
accepted definition of "demonstration" for reclamation be developed by
BLM, OSM, state regulatory agencies and wildlife agencies. It should be
noted that BLM does not have any criteria for assessing successful reclam.
relating to their special reclamation stipulations.
The legal question of BLM's authority to require reclamation of wildlife
habitats on private surface over federal minerals "when opposed by the
landowner" should be addressed in the DEIS. Another related top'
should be addressed is that of bond
requires wildlife habitat restorati
habitats will remain after bond rel
that
itipulatio
sts that these
3. Page 90-92. under
i in heading, Wildlife - The mos
habitat and key species are discussed under this sect ii
that a list of wildlife species occurring or expected
Union Area be included in a summary table or appendix.
itability lists should be denoted.
valuable wildlife
i. It is recommended
> occur in the Fort
Those key species
209
Page 91 - last paragraph under the heading, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat -
We find this section inadequate and incomple
liame and Fish Department conducted an evalua
Each stream was rated on a scale of 1 to 4,
In 1978. North Dakota
i of permanent streams.
i those rated at 1 considered
of critical importance, and those rated at 4 of limited value. Criteria
considered in the evaluation included the sport fishery, use by wildlife
reclamation potential, recreational use, aesthetic value, and water quality.
In North Dakota, the Knife River and its tributaries, Antelope. Brush,
Coyote, Spring and Otter Creeks, have been placed in category 1 -- highest
value. In addition, the Little Missouri River and Beaver Creek, a tributary,
are placed in category 1. A short description of these stream values
fol lows :
a. Kni fe River - The Knife River from Highway 22 at Manning to
the Missouri River is rated as critical importance for
several reasons. It supports a highly valued sport fishery
on channel catfish, walleye, sauger, northern pike and
white bass. The entire reach also provides a large amount
of forage fish production, and reproduction of several
sport species including northern pike, channel catfish,
walleye and sauger. This reach also maintains good fur-
bearer populations throughout. The river and its floodplain
are highly valued aesthetically and would be very difficult
to reclaim or mitigate for losses incurred by coal development.
Current water quality is severely degraded by overgrazing,
agriculture and feedlot runoff, and municipal waste from
several communities. Siltation and reduced seasonal flows
are already inhibiting fish migrations. Therefore, high
flows in the spring are essential for continued fishery
values; reduced or stabilized flows would be very detri-
mental.
b. Antelope Creek - The reach from the former Shramm Dam to
the Kni fe River has a "critical" rating because of its
excellent forage fish production, northern pike reproduction,
and a moderate sport fishery near the mouth for northern
pike, channel catfish and walleye.
c. Brush, Coyote and Otter Creeks - These reaches from their
headwaters to the Knife River are rated "critical" because
of extremely high forage production. This production
serves as a part of a forage base for the sport fish populations
in the Knife River.
d. Spring Creek - The reach from Lake Ilo National Wildlife
Refuge to the Knife River provides moderate forage
production and reproduction of several sport fisheries.
It also maintains good furbearer populations. Its main
asset is Us continuous water flow as a result of springs.
The water flow from these springs is vital to overwintering
of both sport and forage fishes in the creek and also in
portu
of the Knife Riv
209
Beaver Creek - The reach from the Montana border to the
Little Missouri River is rated as "critical" primarily
because of its importance in maintaining one of the best
furbearer populations in the state. It is also valued
because of moderate forage fish production and reproductii
of northern pike, channel catfish and sauger. The area
through which the creek runs is extremely rugged and wouli
be very difficult, if not impossible, to reclaim.
iggest that the fishery section for the North Dakota por
i DEIS be expanded to include the abovementioned rivers
creeks.
210
211
212
Page 99, under the heading, . Acid Precipitation - The discussion on acid
precipitation and power plant emissions should be expanded to address the
issue of white muscle or dead-calf syndrome and potential impacts to wildlife.
In laymen's terms, sulfur from power plant emissions accumulates in vegeta-
tion (e.g. alfalfa, tame pasture, native prairie). When this vegetation is
ingested, the sulfur tends to inhibit selenium uptake which is important in
neuro and muscular activity, especially during stressful periods. This
phenomenon has been documented by Dr. Hastings, a veterinarian from Mandan,
North Dakota, for dead born calves near power plants and can be substantiated
by numerous ranchers near the power plants. The impacts on wildlife such as
white-tailed or mule deer have not been assessed to date.
Page 123, 1st paragraph under the heading. Wild! i fi
disagree with the statement, "the impacts from inc
would be insignificant, and the acreage '
be considerably less than the other alt.
and other ancillary developments
Midlife (Alternative 1) - We
■om increased human populatio
Midlife habitat destroyed wo
tives, as the powerlines, roa'
with the new plant construct
luld not occur." This statement is misleading since some of the facili
are under construction (Antelope Valley Power Plant. ANG Coal Gasificati.
Plant) and little mining has occurred in this area to date. The constan
higher consumptive and nonconsumptive
hin-l .
the
fi Idlife
7. Page .123, 2nd & 3rd paragraphs under the heading. Wild! 1 fe (Alternat
The major' point made here is that the federal coal areas to be mined
ificdnt wildlife habitats,
more rough and broken topography and con1
concur with your assessment that mining \
areas if the federal coal is not leased,
areas would be significantly reduced.
It is stated that the federal coal areas
and Beaver Creek drainage of the Renner '
tract contain 34,421 acres of native pra
5,417 acres of woodlands. You further
be destroyed during mining if federal
statement should be supported or clari
ve 1) -
contain
federal coal areas contain the
gh wildlife values. We
.till occur in the surruunding
■r. wildlife impacts to these
i on the Glenharold, northern portion
tract and portions of the Underwood
airie, 4,444 acres of wetlands, and
>tate that most of these areas would
jal is not leased- How? This
213
214
Page 124. last paragraph under the heading. Wildlife (Alternativt
paragraph discusses the potential use of strip mine pits to enhar
opportunities. Based on current fishery management experience ir
Dakota, we believe these "excellent opportunities" are overrated.
bodies of water in North Dakota pose particular fishery managemer
because they are subject to chronic problems such as winterkill,
and water quality degradation from agricultural runoffs and silta
These impoundments generally require significant management effor
maintain a viable and harvestable fishery. Ponds created from st
pits in the state would most likely suffer from similar problems
potential contamination from leaching of sodic overburdens, heavy
dissolved solids, and salts. The potential 1 imi
in this section.
North
Small
problems
ummerkill .
should be discussed
_2) - The
prairie has achieved
i production equal to premining conditions, but species mix and
diversity has been more difficult to reach. However, it appears that
reclamation would be adequate for wildlife and impacts would be short-term."
We believe these statements are misleading. Drastic changes occur to the
plant and animal composition on native grasslands when the grasslands are
destroyed. Vegetation on native grassland is composed almost entirely of
deep-rooted (up to 15 feet) perennial or biennial plants that have evolved
under conditions of grazing, burning and extreme fluctuations in climate.
Variations in soil moisture, slope, direction of exposure, and geologic
origin create a variety of grassland plant associations. Only a few studies
have been conducted to determine the total biological productivity of native
prairie in North Dakota. Those studies that have been conducted, however,
indicate that native prairie supports diverse and abundant populations of
Oirds, mammals and invertebrates. For example, during a 1967 study by
biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service's Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center, native prairie was found to support an average breeding
bird density of 142.7 pairs/km . The breeding population of birds included
a minimum of 26 species. Most mammal species in North Dakota are dependent
in one way or another on grasslands. Carnivores, except for aquatic-orientatei
species, secure most of their food from grasslands in the form of birds,
mammals, amphibians, reptiles and insects. Carnivores such as red fox,
coyote and badger generally choose this habitat for rearing young. Grasslands
are essential for ground squirrels and many other small mammals. Reclamation
of native prairie has been advanced further than woodland or wetland reclamati<
it adequate for wildlife and to consider the impacts short-
' opn
is pr
Mlur,
We appreciate this opportunity to providi
Union Coal Region. If you require addit
please contact Roger Collins (783-4492) i
Attachments (2)
comments on the DEIS for the Fort
inal information or clarification,
- Steve Young (783-4406) of my staff.
.&■*?. tftf
2-50
RO. Oenve
(ENV)
(Attn: F
Cole)
WS. OEC,
rfashlngto
, D.C.
ES Super,
sor. 8(11
nqs. Ml
(Attn: D
Christopnerson)
BLM. Olck
(Attn: C
Steele A
M. Hoffer)
NOTjSFD, 8
(Attn: n
McKenna)
District Manager, Bureau of Land Management
Dickinson, North Dakota
-■t^i&a Manager
V" Bismarck, north Dakota
U- West-Central North Dakota Management Franewort. Plan Addendum (Ma
15. K82) - Wildlife Unsuitahllity Pee omendat ions
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FVS) hi
as associated BLM docunents on the Wo;
Rccorrcndatlons [Kay 1S8P), Decision [
(July irei). V.C offer the following <
areas to be excluded fron further cons
the analysis
s reviewed the sub, ect docuncnt as
t-Ccntral Management Framework Pla;
ocuncnt (September 1 *C0 ) and Surma
crnents on BLM's recommendations ft
(deration for leasing or mining be:
wildlife data and the wildlife unsuitabil ity criteria
submitted in accordance with our Menorandun of Undcrstandina
(MOU) on Coal, the national DUVfl.'S I'OU and coordination responsibilities under
the Federal Coal Management Program (FCI'P). We will first address some general
issues ancj follow with specific comments on the addendum.
dl Conr.ents
Your docunents indicate that
Vest-Central MFP have undcrgoi
criteria. Of this total, wc i
are recommended for exclusion
understand that BLM has decldi
other deposits as unsuitable
lands for delayed leasing con!
excess of 170.000 acres of federal coal in the
the application of wildlife unsut tahil ity
derstand 480 acres In the Center-Stanton Deposit
ron further consideration for leasing, lie also
not to recormend high value wildlife lands In
r teasing and mining, but has identified these
deration beyond the 1983 lease sale. These
We Lcl leve that a number of inconsistencies presently exist in the manner in
which the coal unsuttabiltty process was applied do the North Dakota portion of
the Fort Union Coal Rcaion. In particular, we are referring to the application
of those unsultabillty'crlterla (No. 9. 11, 1?, 13. 14 and 15) that relate to
wildlife.
We believe that th-> erpllcatlon by the Dickinson District is not totally consistent
wltil the BUi regulations in Subpart 3461 - Federal Lands Review - Unsuitabil Ity
for Mining. Ue had an opportunity to be briefed on the wildlife unsuitabil Ity
recommendations in Montana. Will this apparent discrepancy between the unsuitaMlHy
application process by two BLM Districts In the Fort Union Coal Region cause
problem in the preparation and analysis of alternatives In the Fort Union
Regional Coal EIS7
The addendum document states that "... exemptions and exceptions to proposed
unsuitable determinations were made wherever mitigations are allowable, acceptable
and feasible". It ts not dear how exemptions and exceptions can be applied
when no areas were recommended as unsuitable. As we understand the unsuitabil ity
assessment procedures fron a review of Section 3461.3 of BLtf's coal planning
regulations, the sequence is as follows: Recommendation of lands as unsuitable,
apply exemptions and exceptions (consultation with state and/or federal fish
and game agency), public review, final OLM dectsion and petition to 0SH for
fcmal designation of land as unsuitable.
Exceptions are discussed In Section 3461 .3-l(a)(l) of BLM's coal regulations.
This section states that "the authorized office shall state in the plan or
analyses those areas which could be leased only subject to conditions or
stipulations to conform to the application of the criteria or exceptions'.
BLM's addendum on the West-Central docs not seem to specifically meet these
requirements. Core Important though, the general public, state and federal
agencies, and private Industry are not afforded the opportunity to review a
complete package of information on specific areas within a coal deposit or
proposed lease that are identlflr-d for exclusion or reclamation. We discussed
this Issue in more detail in our October 20, 1SB1, memorandum (copy attached).
Since BLM is currently In the activity planning stage 1n the West-Central, K
surest this type of information be provided upfront to industry to assist in
development of logical nine plans.
Coordination requirements between BLM and the FWS or state game and fish agency
arc discussed in Section 3461.3-2 of the regulations. The exception clause for
wildlife unsultabtllty Criteria 9. 11. 13 and 14 require consultation with the
n.'S. L'c consider our day-to-day coordination with BLM quite good, but believe
coordination requirements for the exceptions process has not been fully met and
should be addressed further before specific areas sub. ect to lease stipulations
for reclamation are identified.
dlands and native prairie destroyed by
ning will be allowed upon demonstration
nt.' We believe "demonstration" Is a
a narrative reclamation plan, but also
p demonstration sites. Some prairie
The narrative states that "wetlands.
mining will be restored or replaced.
of satisfactory restoration or replac
key word and should be based not only
on practical field research and long-
wetlands and native woodlands may have to be sacrificed in thi:
BLM should strive to protect most of these valuable habitats until resource
professionals can reach a concensus whether or not they can be adequately
restored. We anticipate that a thorough discussion of reclamation potential of
these habitat types will be presented in the Fort Union Regional Coal EIS.
BLM acknowledges the existence of important wildlife habitats as evidenced by
the descriptions on Renner's Cove and North Garrison Deposit. Rcnner's Cove Is
characterized as a ". . . large undisturbed block of essential wildlife habitat,
with some of the best native woodlands, riparian wetlands and native prairie
left In North Dakota." North Garrison is described by: ". . . seven-mf lc-long
complex of native prairie, woodlands, and riparian wetlands 1s some of the
finest remaining in North Dakota." 8LM also states that coal in the Rcnner's
Cove area ray never need to be mined . , . and that development potential of
coal 1n North Garrison Is relatively low. and loss of the coal reserves for the
Imedlate future Is Inconsequential. Since this Is the case, we believe it
would be preferable to use the unsul tabl 1 Ity process rather then the delayed
leasing concept.
Section 3461.5(a) describes the process whereby petitions to designate or
terminate a designation of federal lands shall be filed with the Office of
Surface Mining, If lands are currently recommended as unsuitable and subsequently
become designated as such. Industry has a pathway to petition for termination
of this designation In the future If advanced reclamation technology, national
energy needs, etc., warrant such a petition. The Public Service Commission's
proposed ancndticnts to the state's coal regulations also provide for petitions
for designation and termination of lands unsuitable. Section 69-05.2-04-03 of
the North Dakota Administrative Cocc Article. Both the state end federal
process would legally provide protection to significant wildlife resources at
this tine while allowing industry the opportunity to file for a termination at
a future date when they have fully demonstrated both a need for the coal and
successful reclamation technology fer the habitats under question. This would
appear to be a practical alternative that conforms to the guidelines and rcoulations
of the FCI.P as well as meeting thr needs of private industry.
Specific Conr.ents
Dunn Center Deposit - The vast majority of this deposit does not contain high
nual Ity habitat. No federal lands are recommended by DLM as unsuitable based
on the wildlife criteria. Some protection will be afforded the riparian habitats
along the Spring Creek corridor because of archaeological exclusions and tract
boundary modifications, but some areas are sub -ect to application of exceptions
at the mine plan stage. The major wetland complex In the southeast corner
(T. 143 II., R. 92 t 93 W.) Is not afforded protection by the wildlife criteria,
multiple-use trade-off"analyses, delayed leasing or other alternatives. Has
this area been overlooked or will reclamation stipulations apply?
Center- Stan ton Dcpo
Appro
pa i
els
i 22, syiEfc;
P. 04 W.. Section 30, Wj) an
leasing based on criteria £. 11
do not apply to these particula
He concur with your recommendation to exclude Section 30 which Is typical
Missouri River breaks habitat with interspersed woodlands, shrubs and prairie.
Our coordination with Consol reveals that they do not plan to mine this half-
section but may use portions for stockpiles which does not roquln
lease for the coal. The BO-acre tracts In Sections 22 and ;
agricultural lands. The exclusion of these two areas on th
habitats appears to be inconsistent with other recommcndatl
II. 12 and 13
prcda
Ren
icr's Cove Deposit - The
iks habitat "in the north
ial Issue. Although no
nner's Cove Deposit contain:
> tier. Reclamation of thesi
of these federal coal lands
excel lent wooded
breaks Is a contn
ire recomended as
2-51
ability
unsuitable, BU1 suggests that leasing In this particular area be delayed end
that Industry delay mining of 400 acres of federal coal currently under lease
until well into the future. To ensure adequate protection, we believe that an
unsuitable recommendation would be preferable.
On page 3 we noted how BLH can use the unsultabll ity process to address wildlife
concerns without precluding additional industry Input at a later date. If that
process were accepted, 400 acres of leased land would be impacted and Industry
would have to be fairly cenpensated for the loss of this coal. As we suggested
In our October 20, 1981, memorandum, the lease exchange process (Subpart 3435
of BLH's regulations) would be applicable and nay provide an adequate solution.
North Garrison Deposit - The U.S. Government has a vested interest In the
wetland habitats of this deposit through the FWS's wetland easement program.
Me have wetland easements located in 23 sections of land within the Missouri
Coteau in this coal deposit. The basic elements of wetland easements are
prohibitions against draining, burning, filling and leveling of wetland <
These easements are an integral part of the National Uildlife Refuge Sys'
Those areas overlying federal coal have previously been excluded by unsu'
criterion 1. No other federal coal lands will be excluded for the wildlife
criteria, but some with Important wildlife habitats will be placed in a category
for delayed leasing consideration. Our concerns previously discussed on this
Issue In the "General Comments" section are applicable here.
Conclusion
Our role throughout this process has been to provide you with recommendations
for protection of the most important wildlife habitats under the guidelines of
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. 0SJ1 Coal Regulations. PSC Coal
Regulations, and BLH's Coal Planning Regulations. We have also noted Inconsistent
in your application of the wildlife unsui tabil I ty criteria, potential ramificatior
and means of rectifying the situation.
In summary, we believe that the BUI recommendations In the West-Central addendum,
specifically the 4C0 acres of unsuitable lands In the Center-Stanton coal
deposit, do not accurately reflect the status of Important wildlife habitat 1n
the West-Central tIFP. This may be more of a reflection of the approach to the
application process by the Dickinson District than due to actual differences of
opinion on essential wildlife habitats. We favor the preliminary September 14,
1S81. recommendations by BLH and believe they arc more appropriate in meeting
the Intent of the unsultabll ity procedures. Granted, delayed leasing and tract
boundary adjustments will afford short-term protection to these habitats through
the June 1?83 lease sale at a minimum, but do not provide the magnitude of
protection as could be attained through the regulatory process. If, however.
BUI'S recommendations become final, we will continue to cooperatively work with
BUI to ensure the protection of these selected wildlife areas and assist you in
future applications of wildlife unsui tabil Ity criteria during the next round of
leasing in the West-Central.
We hope that our comments are accepted in a constructive manner and that they
may be beneficial In dealing with some very difficult decisions In the F01P In
Horth Dakota. We are hopeful that through this coordinated effort, we can
assist you In teeplng impacts to wildlife habitats down to an acceptable minimum
and simultaneously develop areas In the Fort Union Region for c
you believe further discussions on any Issues may be worthwhile
available to meet with you and your staff.
MERLE 0. BENNETT
ABSTRACT OP ")R. HASTINu.; "Ti^SENTATIOll AT AS INTENTIONAL SYMPOSIUM
ON PATHOBIOLOCY OF 'SVVnoWriNTAL POLLUTANTS - ANIMAL MODELS AJfD
W1LUIF5 AS MONITORS
June 1-5, 1977
University of Connecticut
jtorrs, Connecticut
Selenium deficiency 1g unexpected In Horth Dakota, a State
generally regarded as having adequate amounts of selenium In the
3oll and In livestock diets. A stillborn calf and weak calf pro-
blem develoned in a herd of AOO beef cows wintered at a ranch on©
mile from the thermoelectric olant and oil refinery. A second oc-
curance at another ranch six miles from another thermoelectric com-
plex had similar calf losser.. The dead calves displayed by gross
and histopathology a skeletal myopathy. This mvopathy is associated
with a metabolic deficiency of selenium, a trace element which is
part of a body enzyme, glutathione peroxidase. Both ranches were
in areas prone for forage fumigation by inversions.
The dead calf and weak calf svndrome encountered at each ranch
was reversed in 2-".-48 hour= through an injection of a selenium
pharmaceutical and now prevented by the feeding of a good source
of selenium, wheat or wheat bran, during the last 60 days of pregnancy.
Lignite coal burning thermolectrlc nlants and oil refineries
produce large quantities of sulfur dio:cide. The growing alfalfa
plant is capable of responding to, and absorbing, sulfur dioxide
through its leaf stomata resulting in a high level of sulfate in its
forage. Prior research has determined that Ingested sulfate can
influence the ruminants selenium levels. Analysis of the alfalfa
sammles at these ranches found normal selenium levels but higher
sulfate levels, comparable to levels fed In related research.
Studies are continuing to find methods of preventing the pro-
blem by monitoring forages or the dam's blood. Purther studies
are being conducted to find better methods of diagnosing the mar-
ginal, a- typical, selenium deficient calf. Also under Investigation
are the roles of other Influences, ouch as stress and concurrent
trace elements deficiencies or excesses.
Donald H. Hastings, DVM
Dakota Foundation for Animal Health
Box 911, Bismarck, N. D. 58501
Btudy partially funded by North Dakota Beef Commission
September 23, 1982
Bureau of Land Management
Uox 30107
Billings, Montana 59107
The Circle Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture sup ort tie land
exchange between BLM and Meridian Land Co.
We feel that a larger tax base is needed, and also that more jobs
would help the local economy. According to a survey taken some time
ago, over E0X of the people in Mc Cone county sup ort development.
That indicates a bi^ need for Jobs, tax base etc. When our young
people get out of high school, some go on to college, and leave
Montana bedause there aren't any good jobs available. The average
age of the farmers in the United States, is over 55,
that there Isn't enough jobs on the farm to sup Ort a
family.
Elmo i- ,R. Dreyerc/
st i residen
2-52
*****
iVr -^ /— z.
CIRCLE. MONTANA 5971E
3u;ee. of Lanj : ana oment
Box 3C157
Billings, I ■ n". 7
I suf oct the land exchange betwc D Jian Lane Co.
ne county.
Another lawsuit was filed in Masrin t
• n t lains ^es'.jrce Council, .cwder River Dasin Rescurc*
wit), the Sierra Club aid others, ayiinst the Irted'.T neit. They
want tne cal lea^int; laws changed to their s ecif ications. If
311 those orginizations hacJ their way, there wouldn't t>e me coal
train leaving Montana or Wyoming. TLise ccal trains ^rinu 1.
dollars to our state, thru rruch neeiei jobs and .30^ severance tax.
He Con* County needs a r uch large tax base and a lot ~cre jobs*
That would help the economy in Circle and ver i ~ entire o
It wo. Id hel; bring much neeaed re] airs to our roads, etc.
'..'e need the land exc.
r,
.1 ■ _ C^y .
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Upper Mlaaoun Region
\'z . PO Box 2S53
\'\f- ngi M ■■ S9I03 *
0C1 ' 1^
To: State Director, Bureau of Land Management. Billings. Montana
From: (^Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation. Billings, Montana
Subject: Bureau of Land Management*!
to the Fort Union Coal Reg
Statement (DES 82-47)
We have reviewed the subject document and havi
^y^
215
216
217
October S, 1982
FORT UNION COAL REGION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFT
MY NAME IS DARRELL GAROUTTE. I AH * FARMER -RANCHER NEAR WELDON
IN MCCONE COUNTY.
THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS OF CONCERN REGARDING THE FORT UNlJN
DRAFT EIS AND PROPOSED COAL LEASE 5ALE IN 19p3.
THE DRAFT EIS SEEKS TO BE VERY DEFICIENT IN KNOWN EFFECTS
THAT SYNFUELS COAL GASIFICATION PLANTS -ILL HAVE ON
AGRICULTURE. ACID RAIN, GROUND HATER POLLUTION AND POLLUTION
FROM OTHER TOnC MATERIALS ARE NOT ADEQUATLY ANSWERED IN THE EIS.
VERT LITTLE IS ANT ATTENTION HAS BEVN GIVEN TO COAL IMPACTS
ON AGRICULTURE OUTSIDE OF THE COAL TRACT AREAS. THERE IS LITTLE
DOUBT THESE IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT. THE SUMMARY STATEMENT
IN THE EIS, THAT IMPACTS TO AGRICULTURE IN THE FORT UNION COAL
REGION WOULD BE laNISOUIE, CANNOT 3E CONSIDERED VALID I.*J LIGHT
OF ALL THE UNKSOWN ASSOCIATED WITH COAL IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE .
SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES ^F COAL DEVELOPMENT OUTLINED IN THE EIS ARE
KIND B0G3LI.C AND MAY SnLL 9E UNDERESTIMATED. THE BLM SHOULD
HAVE DONE A 3ETTER JOB OF BRTtCING THE ISFOBHATI3N BEFORE THE
PUBLIC IN IMPACT AREAS. Z SI CERELY DOUBT IF THE GENERAL
^<4
217[
POPULASE IN THESE AREAS KAVr>HAT'S IN STORE FOR THEM IF CCAL
218
DEVELOPMENT BEC0HE& A. KEAdTX'
ALL THESE AREAS OF CONCERN NEFD TO 3F. ANSWERED AND BhOUG.-n1 3EF0RE
THE PUBUC FOR COMMENT BEFORE ANY COAL LEASE SALE IS CONSIDERED.
THERE ALSO APPEARS TO BE LITTLE NEED FOR A C3AL LEASE SAI3 IN
19*3. LACK OF COMPETITION BIDDING AND LOW PRICES IN THE POWDER
RIVER COAL LEASE SALE POINT TO THIS FACT. ANY LEASE SALE AT
THIS TIME WOULD ONLT SERVE COAL SPECULATION AND OT THE FU3LIC
INTEREST. /-\
G*AUJl_uj Q<i
Jtz.
2-53
[?^C&5fo3
October 7, 1982
The Nokota Company has i
ronmental Impact Statem
Air Quality Information
the comments of The Noko
iviewed the July, 1982, Draft Envi-
nt (DEIS) and the September, 1982
Supplement . This letter contains
a Company on those documents.
219
efore proceeding
wit
he comi
nents,
however
we
would
like
o advise the Reg
. Coal Team tha
: we support
its choice
f Alternative 3
th
e pref
alternat
irily
Du
nn Center tract. As
he Nokota Company ha:
P
build
and operate
a coal-to
ethanol plant wi
bin
the Dunn
Center
tract.
ur comments are i
s fc
Hows:
. The DEIS stat
es
at
page
unde
E "CultU
ral
Peatu
es,"
that a port
of
the
Knife
River
Pi in
including a part
oj
the
)unn Center t
been
declared elig
ble
to
r the
Nation
1 Regist
f Historic
Places and
is
"p
roposec
as
a Nati
onal
Reg
Ster
District. "
Comment: In
the
op
nion c
f the
Keeper c
f th
e Nat
onal
the
The legal status
antly and subs tan t
which has merely
ces , based on an office r
by the BLH, a portion ol
ible for the National Register,
can be created , however , the
of land-
of
appr
ed Dis
lly different thar
that of
een determined to
be "eli-
National Register
To the
Th* Nokota Company / I
219
220
Mr. Lloyd Emmons
October 7, 1982
Page 2
formally proposed
to
the Kee
aer of
the Natio
lal
Reg
ster
and there is r
nd
that
he
would be rece
ived.
There
:ore
the
refere
nee
to
the
"proposed" sta
of
the Kni
e Riv
3uarry
and misleading
and should be
deleted.
2. On page 7 of the
DEIS, unde
r "Cu
ltu
ral Res
)U«
es.
the
statement is made that
of *_wo sections of the 1
will be determined whei
leaving open the possib
its announced plan t
determination under Crit
the mining plan
lity that the BLM
3 hold open the
the Addendu
Comment: In its comments c
Central North Dakota Ma nag
April 14, 1982, Nokota noted that the
authority to declare an area unsui
merely on the basis of a deter
eligibility for listing in the Nati<
requested the BLM to delete that portic
which provided for a condition;
determination and to restore these sec
considered suitable for leasing.
suitability
mitigation
developed.
West-
filed
legal
al Register and
of the Addendum
unsuitability
Lons to the area
In
1982 "Dec
unde
spondvng to thi
Doc
by
Management
the West-Central North Dakota
Under these circumstances,
inaccurate for the DEIS
reference to the pendency
Headquarters, BLM, that the
will be deferred to mine plan
respectfully requests that th:
Nokota
archae
eligib
Nokota
r of
he
Bureau
of Land
lot bee
ncorpora
:ed into
Managemen
t Framewc
rk Plan.
nappropri
ate and
:o aga
state.
without
of th
s
question
within
suitab
Li
ty determination
time.
Accordingly
, Nokota
s stat«
nt be eli
minated.
lat
e mitigation of
the
n Center
Tract,
nin tl
e
area cc
nsidered
Natior
al
Register
or not .
rface n
in
ing permi
t appli-
opposed
r this purpose. Nokota believes that
y be coordinated with mine development
provide sufficient research infor-
prehistory of the area to meet the
Mr. Lloyd Emmons
October 7, 1962
Page 3
220
221
222
223
ements of the public int
ological research withou
or preventing orderly min
ala will only be allowed
: and the
eluding ar
'elopment.
th Dakota state
the disposal of
isposal of waste
nner designed to
tfa
the
'rship map of the Dunn Center
■ars on page 24 of the DEIS, shows feder
of less than 100% in the Southeast qua
., Township 144 North, Range 94 West,
tarked in gold on the map.
The map is incor
Comment : The map is incorrect. There is no federal
ownership of coal in the Southeast quarter. All coal in
the Southeast quarter is privately owned. This fact is
confirmed by a July 1, 1976 letter from Roland P. Lee,
Chief, Branch of Lands and Minerals Operations, Bureau
of Land Management, Billings, Montana. A copy of this
letter is attached for your information. You will note
that on July 1, 1976, Mr. Lee stated that the BLM
records would be corrected to reflect the absence of
federal coal ownership in the Southeast quarter of
Section 11. We trust that you will now ensure that your
records are indeed corrected.
On page 65
of t
he DEIS
unde
r "Water 0
lality
" reference
is made to
the
"Spr
ing
Creek
alluvial
valley
floor." On
page 85,
entitled
■Water
Use," the
statement
Spri
ng Creek i
n the
Dunn Center
tract is a str
■am
that has
a good potentia
L for being
designated
llu
/ial v
alley floe
r. On page 105,
tied
"Problems,
" the
area around
Spring Cre
floor.
ek is
ag
refer
ed to as an alii
vial valley
Comment :
The
itat
>me
ts wi
thin the DEIS re
fer, in two
places, to
the
Spi
inq
Creek
area as s
n allu
vial valley
floor, ant
pla
the Spring Creek
the
" pa 1
al"
ated as an
alluvial v
alley
tla
On the basis o
: our
esearch and
analysis
conce
rning the Spr
ing Creek
area and the Dunn
Mr. Lloyd Emmons
October 7, 1962
Page 4
Center tract, we believe that the Spring Creek area is
not an alluvial valley floor, nor does it have the
potential for such designation under either the federal
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 197 7 or
the North Dakota law on the same subject contained in
North Dakota Century Code Chapter 38-14.1. We would
00*5
also like to point out that the final decision on
c*£t3
whether the Spring Creek area is or is not an alluvial
valley floor as defined in state and federal law and
regulations will be made by the North Dakota Pulic
Service Commission and will not be made until such time
as an application for a surface mining permit is
submitted to that agency. Consequently, it is
premature , in the DEIS, to refer to the Spring Creek
area as an alluvial valley floor.
6. On page 65 of the DEIS, under the section entitled
"Cultural," the BLM suggests that the principle of
mitigation through data recovery has been accepted,
subject to "special tract stipulations." On page 128
'"*'"* A
under "Cultural Features" for Alternative 2, the DEIS
A.Z.*l
refers to the possibility of Memoranda of Understanding
MM~
as a management device for site mitigation.
Comment : Nokota agrees that a Memorandum of Understand-
ing with the BLM would be useful in managing a cultural
resource mitigation program.
7. On pages 85, 69, 105 and 106 of the DEIS, reference is
made to irrigation activities within the Dunn Center
tract . On page 89 , reference is made to hay production
amounts on irrigated hay lands on the Dunn Center tract.
On this page it is further stated that 311 tract acres
of crop land are under irrigation in the Dunn Center
tract.
Comment: We dispute this conclusion concerning the use
*™V <r~\ •■•
of irrigation in the Dunn Center tract. To the best of
yyR
our knowledge there is no irrigated hay land or crop
b4dttJ
land anywhere in the Dunn Center tract. It is our
understanding that in the past 20 years the North Dakota
State water Commission has issued five or six condition-
al water permits for irrigation in this area. All but
one of these conditional water permits were never per-
fected. The remaining conditional water permit was used
for a short term for irrigation purposes, but has long
since been abandoned. Consequently, it appears that the
DEIS has extrapolated the granting of conditional water
2-54
225
226
Mr. Lloyd
October 7
Page 5
Emmons
1982
pe
pu
rposes in
f land pr
iter tract
the Dunn
The
Cente
from
nose perm
tract, i
rrigated
elusions
ts fo
nclud
land
in th
ng
Ln
rriga
the
DEIS
■i j-
■ mo
8. On
page 10S of the DEIS, under the secti
ldustrial Wastes," reference is made t
ch will be produced by gasification plan
r
which
-led
als
Cotrmieri
ir,
»l-t
ol proje
,s the Nokota
presently classified as hazardous by EPA. Solid wastes
wi 11 be generated by tne plant and will be disposed of
in accordance with the requirements of the North Dakota
State Department of Health, however, none of these
|_ wastes are hazardous wastes.
227
9. On page 124 of tne DEIS, in the description of wildlife
under Alternative 1, a statement is made that mitigation
for and in some cases improvement in wildlife habitat
would be possible by leaving portions of high walls in
strategic places to create cliffs and nesting habitat.
Comment: The BLM should note that both federal and
state surface mining and reclamation laws currently
require high walls to be eliminated as a part of tne
environmental protection performance standards for
228
10. On page 124 of the DEIS, under the section on wildlife
for Alternative 1, the statement is made that the State
of North Dakota will not allow surface mining of
significant wooded areas until mining companies can
demonstrate that woody draws can be reclaimed. This
statement is inconsistent with tnat appearing in the
Summary on page 127 in which it is concluded that
habitat destruction of woody draws would occur from
mining.
229
11. On page S-9 of the air quality supplement, in Table 2-3,
the federal and state PSD increments are shown. The
table is incorrect in that the Class II North Dakota
increments for particulates are now the same as the
230
Lloyd Emmons
7, 1982
Page 6
12. As a general comment insofar as the air quality supple-
ment is concerned, it is our view that the BLM has not
properly emphasized the fact that the air quality im-
pacts described are based on worst-case scenarios, none
of which are likely to occur . without proper emphasis
on this fact, the public is likely to be seriously
misled concerning the potential air quality impacts.
We appreciate tnis opportunity to comment on the Fort Union
Coal Region Draft EIS. IE you desire any further informa-
tion concerning the Dunn- Nokota Methanol Project , please
Sincerely,
THE NOKOTA
COMPANY.
/
G. E. Andei
sen
President
GEA/Lcw
Enclosure:
July 1
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
316 North ?6th Street
P.O. Box 301S7
BilUngs, Montana 59107
Mr. A. M. Weiss
Director Coal Development
Natural Cas Pipeline Company of America
122 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Dear Mr. Weiss:
In your letter of February 26, you quesl
records Indicate that the United States
Interest ln the following-described lane
Dunn County, North Dakota
: obtained an Abstract and an i
Field Sollcl-
Unlted States.
thank you for calling this
Roland F. Lee ^"--
" ' - ■ ISffi'JfcM
■ ■ |
3SCHWTND£N M(
Ststr ill 3Han»a..a
(Dffiri .1 1l|V Q&ourruor
Mltaia, JHo.itm.n 5>JE,2u
October 8. 1982
Mr. Mike Penfold, Director
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, Montana 59107
Dear Mike:
This letter conveys the State of Montana's comments on the Fort
Union Coal Region Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared
by the Bureau of Land Management. They were compiled from comments
submitted by various state agencies following their review of the DEIS
Montana's previous comments submitted in 1981 regarding the site specific
analyses (SSA's) still apply, although in some instances, changes or
improvements were made which corrected problem areas.
i am submitting, in their entirety, the comments received from the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The comments are
detailed, and reflect issues and concerns with the applications of
unsuitability criteria to the Fort Union process. Additional comments
regarding the Air Quality Supplement are being prepared by the Montana
Department Of Health and Environmental Sciences, Air Quality Bureau, and
will be submitted prior to the October 19 comment deadline.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the fort Union DEIS.
Your staff and others involved in the preparation of the document are to
be commended for conscientiously carrying out an extremely complex and
sensi tive process.
Sincerely,
Governor Olson
TED SCHWiNDEN
2-55
231
IPES-AKTMEVT OF ^fe%'
JFHSIHI, ^yHJUIDILIIIFiE AOT> IPAKKS
Department of State Lands
Helena, HT 59620
Dear Ralph:
The follow
I S82
The Fort Union Coal Region draft environmental impa
Federal Coal Management Program (<0 CRF 3^00). The
corporated into the lease process to ensure comphai
meet energy production goals through 19&7 while can
(Redwater MFP, 0-1). Criterion 15 also supplied oni
into federal coal leasing open to state governments
nt wildlife species. Problems arose, howe<
ent (DEIS) h
as res
I te
No. 15 conta
ined [
th
ility Criter
ia wer
in
the stated t
arget.
"EO
otect.ng the
envir
The Fort Un
al le.
ale
of
The fii
: first to be conducted under the new
mess was the production of a comprehen-
sive land use plan. Tkis was accomplished with the release and acceptance of the
Redwater Management Framework Plan (MFP) (1979) covering the Montana portion of the
Fort Union coal area.-_-Thi s document, contained one of the first applications of the
meetings w.th Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife C "Parks [MQFWP) reg-ions 6 and 7
personnel (Redwater MFP-, C-k) . This resulted in 3210 acres of the- 2.3S-.599 "acres of
federal coal under study being declared unsuitable for mining. .Included were a one-
wintering areas totaling 688 acres, and one white-tailed deer/pheasant wintering are
covering 6 30 acres. The lack of an adequate wildlife data base for the meaningful
application of criterion IS to the Circle Known Recoverable Coal Lease Area (KRCftA)
was commented on by MDFUP region 6 personnel. In response, the SLM gave assurances
that data could be incorporated and unsui tabi 1 i ty applied a
of mine plan submission (Public hearing, Redwater MFP, Ana)
comments, I9G0), "
The Reagan
The Departf
of
oal leasing program i i.
the unsuitabi lity criteria in particular shortly after assuming offii
ent of Interior's Office of Policy Analysis contended, "that Crlterioi
tection of high state interest wildlife should be deleted." It goes 1
the criterion has been viewed instead by the field as giving license
and game departments to veto potential coal lands. Also, according t<
(jtli,
of .
231
The Montana 6LM office also recommended abolishing 1
percolating from the top, has probably influenced fi
criteria. The complaint of encumbering the Fort Uni
since only a perfunctory application had been admini
Ongoing data collections confirmed the existence of
range that overlapped a proposed coal lease tract.
to the 8LH and the Regional Coal Team (RCT). in a n
Analyses (SSA) . However, the Circle West SSA's stai
resultant populations are the most important wildlil
area shown on map .3 is used year-round and contains
kidding areas. The pronghorn that winter and are r<
significant portion of the animals for a large area,
of hunting provided by the herd is unknown, but it i
rg, personal communications)." Although th 1
important pronghorn antelope
is information was relayed
ting with the Bin, our field
data in the Site Specific
of 1
able t<
e' SSA'-
I unsuitabi lity cnte
ii 1 ity crrte'ria" ft 3 CFR 3I16I) w,
findings of unsurtabi 1 i ty are
hrough 15 and"! J involving fisl
teria Cs"l c) will be applied Pr
.(a) "The
regi.
tinued the.r-ecogni t ion of th i
ract contains some, of the mos
".The "destruction of this hal
rd by- des'troy ing their winter
Che area, identified as- fftrr
range in the Circle West" ar
criterion 15 was not 'for the
considered Q<\ this site-speci
ted jn this report," and (c)
wi'ldlife are pending further
the final EI5 as the data be
al area when it stated, "tl
ant wildl i fe habi tat in Chi
uld severely impact the h'n
nd year- round habi tat" (p .
abitat." Although the anti
1 DEIS !
lieal i
the 1
I o| , 5
suitability criterion 1
f strip mining federal
t3y\le for mi ri ing rhUS
intcr'range'was not aff
nowiedged by the 8LM.
range (p. d8). The sti
ibed I
preferred al tcrnat ive .(number 3) ■ Apparent ly ,. the SIM re legated- the decision t.
state's mine permitting process. As a result, s tate wi Idl i fe managers wer& lef
with indecision rather^than precedents or guidelines to follow in the ap|>licati.
Mr- Ralph Oriear 3 5/30/82
Another species which received special attention when criterion 15 was first applied
to Che KRCRA's was the sharp-tailed grouse. A one-half mile radius around nine male
the integrity of these grounds." A total of 1892 acres of federal coat was excluded.
Since all leks located over federal coal were not declared unsuitable, the basis for
guidelines was established. Three leks in the Vibaux-Beach KRCRA were considered
expendable based on, "the relative number of males in attendance on all leks in the
area and the distance to other leks which were declared unsuitable or located outside
the coal area" (Redwater MFP, p. <<8). Stipulations covering reclamation and revegeta-
tion to native plants and the size of operation relative to the area-wide grouse
populations were to be applied if coal development occurred.
In the Circle West area 3, dancing grounds were Identified in the Redwater MFP and
portions of the one-half mile radius overlying federal coal were removed from the
lease process. The Circle West III SSA noted one lek had been located on the tract
but the lack of activity in 1979 led to the conclusion it was abandoned (Circle West
III SSA, p. 11).
In 1962, an intensive spring survey was conducted in the Circle West area north of
Nelson Creek. Five previously located grounds were checked and six new'ones were
located. In addition, one ground was found in I98I and was not checked in 1982.
These data were relayed to the DLM and they were acknowledged in the DEIS. "Eleven
known sharp-tailed grouse dancing grounds. ..in and around the Circle Ml tract make
D^l
litis a very important and sensitive wildlife area" (p. 126). Of special importance
CtDv
was one ground located over federal coal in the center of the Circle III tract. In
addition, the., lek previously listed as abandoned was active in 1982. Neither of
these grounds received. the protection previously granted their neighbors. Instead,
they were shielded by .unspeci f ied special stipulations that apparently defer a
decision to the state's mine permitting process
The application of criterion 15 to sharp-tailed grouse leks provided the first sug-
gestion of guidelines used by the DLH decision makers.' 'Apparently, leks located
outside or along the bouodary-of delineated coal tracts had all underlying federal
coal declared unsuitable for mining. However, those located within a tract, where
an unsui tabi 1 ity decision could impact the exploitation of the tract, were Included
mi the lease sale Hi tfi. Stipulations. The stipulations lifted the burden of decision
making from the BLM's shoulders . State wildlife managers, therefore, apparently
must limit the application of criterion l"5 to those leks which do not interfere with
the designation of _a" logical mming unit..
The Bloomfield tract was subjected to a four-season wildlife inventory by Matthews
of the BLH. He identified the Sheep Mountain Divide along the wes tcrn"edge"of the
tract as "crucial mule deer habitat." The area was labeled as "essential mule deer
winter range" on map 3 of the Bloomfield SSA. It was also delineated as having the
potential to be declared unsui table based on existing information. The_tract map
on page 11 of the. DEI S" indicated this declaration did not occur. Although the
Bloomfield tract was included in the RCT's preferred alternative, no mention was
231
with the rough topography 1
(DEIS p. 126). Apparently
rjngpjs as qualifying for ui
The prima
ry wildlife
data
.r.'
for two of the tracts was
collected by
private co
sul tant f i rms under
contra
t to
energy companies. In the
case of
the
Burns Cree
tract. Mo
bil Oil Cor
por.it 1
n ha
not, and apparent ly wi 1 1
not, re
ease
Its inforr
tion to the 6LM. Si
nee pr
vate
landowners will not allow
0 BLM Liiologis
the unsu
tabi lity cr
teria
cann
)t be applied to this trac
t. Ther
fore
, this
tract car
not be offered fo
lea
e. The RCT, however, i nc
u.-lcd I/Hi
ns 1
reek in it
preferred
al ternati v
es. 1
form
tlon on Che Redwater trac
ts, coll
ctec
for WESCO
Resources
, Inc. was
not a
ailable for inclusion in the SSA's (Re
watt
r SSA 1 p.
Whether 1
nsuitabilit
y ... i- 1 1
r ia
ere applied to these trac
ts and,
f sc
, what dat
ained in the DEIS. The discus
ternative
mentioned
Redwater 1
and 1
tra
ts contained valuable wi 1
J life ha
ita
(DEIS p.
In addit
on. Redwate
luded in the tracts cover
:d by st
pule
sharp-ta
led grouse
and.cr
tica
antelope range (DEIS p.
48). Th
use
of data
collected
for energy
compar
ies
ntent on leasing federal
:oal for
app
ication of
unsu, tab.
lity criter
on 15
shou
d be closely monitored by
the sta
c-
The Fort
Union coal
ease s
ale.
one of the first to be co
iducted under
the new
federal c
■ 1 1 man a gem
jnt pro
gram
has so far failed to pro
side a basis
for determ
the impac
ts on coal
development
of implement i ng the unsui
abi 1 ity
prov
isions four
This v
as ur
fortunate in light of the
high le
el P
rocedural
attacks a
imed at the
e pro*
isior
s. Had they: been accural
ly and prope
rly appl lee
ts could ha
uated and changes propose
the process
Unfortuna
tely, tins
)pporcu
rnty
has been lost.
Unsui tabi
lity criter
on 15
was
ntended to protect resident wild!
fe s
pecies thrc
the coope
rative efforts of
the s
urface management agency
nd the
tate
However
the rcsul
1 was often
cati
and feder
(i.e.
espondence from North Dak
•ish f)epar
to BLH da
ted June 2')
198l!
. The Fort Union coal leasing
process
whic
h culminate
lease of the DEIS
indie
b we
re applied
esigned to
meet the needs of the coa
t rather tl
the needs
of. the res"
dent w
i ldl
fe species.
As you ca
n see. the
dent i f
icat
on and appl ication of cri
erion 15
des
ignations
being ser
ously comp
omised
ere conscientiously appl 1
d in the
pas
t, we have
through n
egociation
eve loped me
aningful wildlife protect
on prog
ams
and still
mo 1 1
ed coat le
sing.
We f
eel it is imperative that
cri tica
wl 1
dlife areas
J and some' protect
fforded to resident wildl
fe. We
objection
to the way
identi
Ficat
ion and deisgnation of cr
tical w
Jdh
fe habitat
being compromised in
the cu
rrent
planning and leasing pro
ess.
2-56
231
the past we have developed a very positive program for protecting wildlife while
eloping our coal reserves. The foundation for that program has been an objectiv
ntlflcatlon and classification of critical wildlife habitat. This process can
linuc, but it will surely falter if we abandon strict objectivity when destiny
^ZZ^Qr^
Uick Johnson
Harold We.it land
Arnold Dood
232
233
STATE OF MONTANA
COMMENTS
FORT UNION COAL REGION
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
OCTOBER 8, 1982
The state of Montana has been an active partner in the evaluation
of the future coal leasing potential of the Fort Union coal region
through participation on the Fort Union Regional Coal Team during the
past 2<j years. One of the more ambitious and complex phases of the
evaluation has included the facility and end use analyses for each of
the proposed lease tracts. The DEIS contains appropriate caveats
stating that comprehensive reviews of individual facilities will be dont
in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws whenever each
;d. However, the level of leasing that wouli
)1 Coal Team's preferred alternative or any
re chosen is not substantii
inge facility development
Facility Siting Art No
and Bloomfield tracts havf
ts in 1983 would be well ii
of the alternatives with higher tonnages .
by the demand for coal indicated in long
plans received by Montana under its Major
facilities associated with the Bums Cree
been identified. So leasing of these tra<
advance of any apparent coal demand.
The DEIS generally underestimates the magnitude of the effect the
more ambitious leasing alternatives would have on the natural and
cultural environment. Full development of the coal tracts in all options
except 1 and 2, would substantially change the character of eastern
Montana. The magnitude of the potential change which would result from
Alternative 6 would likely be far greater than any change which has
occurred in this century.
The DEIS does not fully discuss the implications of the Meridian
Exchange, especially in conjunction with a new alternative which would
provide for an exchange in the Redwater tract as well as the Circle
tract. This alternative apparently is being considered as part of the
Miles City 8LM District Office's Environmental Assessment of the Meridian
Exchange and would involve consolidation of about 700 million tons of
Meridian coal in the Circle tract and 700 million tons of federal coal
in the Redwater tract. This may enhance the development opportunities
of both federal and private coal. The Environmental Assessment should
adequately consider the full range of potential consequences to the
resources of Montana resulting from such an exchange. Montana may be
submitting additional detailed comments regarding the exchange following
a review of the forthcoming Environmental Assessment.
234
235
236
237
238
able
of 13.6 f
illi
The DEIS points Out that '
exists on Fort Peck Reservoir. That amount may not, in fact, be avanaoie.
The Fort Peck Indian Tribes are presently negotiating their reserved
right. The State of Montana has 300,000 acre-feet to sell and the Corps
of Engineers views the reservoir and its water as part of an integrated
system, which may or may not have water available depending on downstream
needs. This situation should be specifically addressed in the ILIS.
Montana's previous comments questioned the use of the term "economic
stability" to describe the effect of coal development on the local
economy. Changes to reflect this comment appear to have been made in
the DEIS, but some additional points still need to be made. When several
developing major energy-related projects were recently cancelled in
neighboring states, homeowners and the local communities were left with
significant socioeconomic costs. Given the uncertainty of demand, the
high capital costs, and the environmental uncertainties associated with
synfuels, this possible scenario should be mentioned in the FE1S and an
estimate made of the socioeconomic costs if a project fails. The HPPSS
project in the Pacific Northwest has shown that when a ut i 1 i ty project
fails, there is also a cost borne by the ratepayers, in addition to the
costs borne by the local comnunities and individuals who planned for
growth.
The Figures 3-3 to 3-15 showing "fiscal balance" for affecjted
Montana towns indicate a continuing deficit' development will "cost more
than it returns. in revenues. The possibility for the coal impact fund
to provide assistance is mentioned, but no analysis is made about the
sufficiency of this fund to cover deficits. In any case, it is a
situation that deserves specific explanation, as it portrays a negative
economic consequence of development which will be borne by local communi-
ties as a result of a federal leasing decision. In contrast, all of the
figures for North Dakota communities show an eventual fiscal surplus.
Higher operation anu maintenance costs to water users who may have
to dig deeper. .wells is mentioned. The DEIS states that in a case where
a landowner believes his/her water has been affected by mining, he/she
can recover damages. However, experience at Colstrip has shown that the
causes of water Jeyel changes are very hard to identify. As a result,
there may be a' significant nuisance factor and cost to a landowner.
attempting to prove an adverse effect on hjs/hei* water resources, which
may not be "recoverable.
r The DEIS- 'states" that the agricultural support economy would not be
affected. _rf,ah'y of the alternatives are chosen which involves more
industrial acViyit'y.than Alternative. .2. "the. economy of eastern Montana
may undergo such major shifts that it seems improbable that the agri-
" economy would remain unaffected.
al supTJCi
- un page'.UO is a discu
bee'n ongoing in Montana ove
intent on that page was to
However, it is North Dakota
sion of energy corridor planning which has
the past two and one half years. The
eference the Montana Major Facility Act.
s siting act that is referenced.
239
240
Appendix I of the DEIS contains a fairly detailed discussion of how
the North Dakota siting process is used to mitigate socioeconomic impacts
of major facilities and to encourage consultation and coordination among
various affected parties, including local government officials. No
discussion of the Montana Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA) is provided,
although the MFSA serves much the same function. Attached is a copy of
a brief discussion of this topic which was a part of a Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation staff presentation at a recent
conference. This should aid in preparing text for the FEIS to include
the MFSA.
The Department of Commerce has assumed many of the functions of the
(defunct) Department of Community Affairs. The Department is presently
providing impact mitigation assistance to coal impacted and potential
coal impacted communities. This local government assistance is provided
by one full-time land use planner and by one part-time program coordinator
"On-site" technical assistance is provided in impact mitigation, local
planning, development controls {development permit systems, subdivision
review, etc.). land-use law, and other relevant matters. Under this
program, assistance is also provided to Montana Coal Board grant appli-
cants and grantees. In addition, the program participants act as liaison
between local government, state government, federal government and
industry.
One Montana statute which could provide impact assistance to local
governments and which was not mentioned in the DEIS is known as Tax Pre-
payment for New Industrial facilities (15-16-201, MCA). 6y applying
this law, a local government could require the owners of a new industrial
facility {e.g. coal gasification plant, coal-fired electrical generation
plant) to prepay the property taxes on the plant, thus providing "up-
front" revenues which could be used to provide for the needed increase
in local governmental services. Only the governmental taxing jurisdic-
tion in which the industrial facility is to be located could require
prepayment (e.g. county government). This statute does not apply to
those jurisdictions which would be affected but would noi
located w-t-tiiin their-borders (e.g. city government, adjai
government).
The-Farmer Home 6Dl.Program is essentially terminated. It woulo oe
appropriate for the FEIS to delete any reference to the program. However,
if the summary of the 601 program is retained, one significant correction
should .be made. Da p*qe A-27 the last full sentence s_hould be changed
to: read, a_s: /oj.lo^s:
The -FmHA-601 Program provides grants to designated,
approved coal impacted areas for planning and for
site acquisition and development for public facilities
,and services and publically owned housing sites.
Jhe 601 program funds only planning and site acquisition and development;
it does not funtf the construction of public facilities or the operation
of public services, as is implied by the sentence currently appearing on
page A-29.
have the plant
2-57
241
242
243
244
The EIS (Appendices A 1 B) does noi
of agency responsibilities towards the <
in project planning. These responsible
should be outlined in the first portion
include a description and evaluation of
resources. While recognizing a relativi
the discussion of these property
fully demonstrate an awarenes:
o..s. deration of cultural resoui
ties and the steps of compliant
of the EIS. Chapter 2 should
relevant surveys for cultural
lack of inventory for historii
Specifically,
;hould include the qualities that make sites such as homesteads
and mines eligible for listing in the National Register, their associative
values, architectural values, informative values, and what constitutes
integrity in the various kinds of historic properties. The discussion
of rock art and historic sites generally does not include information on
possible associative and architectural values. Such information is
needed along with an analysis of possible and appropriate mitigation.
The DEIS lacks discussion of the effects of changes in water quality
and quantity on aquatic ecosystems. The discussion of water impacts in
the DEIS centers on the effects on wells, groundwater, and municipal
water supplies, almost no mention is made of effects of altered streamflows
and water quality on aquatic macroinvertebrates, fish, and other fauna.
Acid rain effects are briefly mentioned (p. 125), but other sources of
water pollution are inadequately covered. Many of the tributaries to
Fort Peck Reservoir and the Redwater River provide important spawning
habitat for sauger and/or walleye. Reduction in in-stream flows in
these tributaries as well as Beaver Creek near Wibaux and the Yellowstone
River below Intake could have significant effects on the fishery.
The legend identifying surface ownership for the Redwater Tract n
on page 19 of the DEIS has transposed ownership for state and privately
owned surface. This can be corrected by indicating state ownership in
blue as has been done with the other tract ownership maps.
while, other tract maps indicate those areas of state coal that are
presently leased, the Woodson Preference Right Lease Application (PRLA)
map on page 35 of the DEIS does not. The map should identify the existing
state coal .lease- on section 16, Township 20 North. Range 56 East of the
PRLA.
The discussion regarding the purpose or relevance of the Montana
Environmental Policy Act contained in Appendix B of the DEIS should
include reference to the requirement for impact.statements for major
state-actions which have the potential to significantly effect the human
environment, "as :is included in the discussion._for (he National Environ-
mental .Policy Action on page A-2.
The references to"" legislation found in Appendix B for the Montana
Department oFState Lands do not reflect the'i979 recodification of
state legis.fat.ion. '-The corrections for the FEIS.are as follows:
1. Replace State Antiquities Act, Chapter 25 of Title 81. R.C.M.
1947 with State-Antiquities Act, Section 22-3-401 et seq:.
MCA.
2. Repfa'ce Section 81-103, R.C.M. 1947 with Section -?2-3-424;
MCA. '
244
245
246
247
248
Replace Section 81-501, it CM. 1947 with Section 77-3-102,
horizes the Board to
res, roads, etc. on
,jith energy development.
Add Section 77-2-102, 103, MCA.
grant easements for the siting of
state-owned lands that may be ass
Page 72 of the DEIS states that the preferred alternative would
also have unleased state coal being made available for sale concurrently
with the federal lease sale. While Montana is actively evaluating the
affected state-owned coal resources within and adjacent to the proposed
federal lease tracts for possible future lease sale, a committment to a
joint state- federal coal lease sale in June 1983 is not possible at this
time. Following the evaluation of state-owned coal, a decision will be
made regarding Montana's participation in the future federal coal lease
sale.
Page 103 of the DEIS reports that drawdown of area water wells as a
result of mining will be limited to the mining tracts and an area within
about one mile of the tracts. It is likely that the drawdown could be
greater than one mile as stated. The distance could be as great as two
miles, depending on the porosity and permeability of the affected
aquifers.'
TheDEIS on page 104 states that there is sufficient impermeable
material below the mineable lignite to prevent the degradation of the
lower aquifers." An indication that an analysis of the local geology
(lithology and thickness of lower layers), hydrology (aquifer properties
of lower materials, head differences between units) and structure
(presence of faults, folded or fractured zones} has been completed
should be added to the text to qualify the 'statement.
Page 105 of the DEIS indicates that hazardous organic wastes will
be produced^ .'An identi f icatfon of these wastes would be helpful t,o the
reader and "Sid in the" understanding of potential impacts.
Also on_page_J05 of the DEIS, the reader-is told that there is no
practicalway to restore alluvial valley floors.. This is false. The
Montana Department of State Lands received plans for restoration of the
South "Fork -of Spring Creek adjacent to the Tongue River Reservoir prepared
by NERCOm 1981.. Initial review of these plans indicates that, with
minor modification' the plans could provide an acceptable method for
reclaiming an alluvial valley floor. It may be possible to apply
si mi ]ar_praclices_tO-the Fort Union area-
e i g /
MAJOR FACILITY SITING ACT
The Montana Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA). enact
des for comprehensive review of proposals to constr
in tinds of facilities for generating, converting o
Montana. The Act covers: 1) facilities that
J in 1973,
■ t and opei ste
transmitting
Jte 50
megawatts or more of electricity; 2) facilities that can produce 25
million cubic feet or more of gas per day; 3) facilities that can
produce 25,000 barrels of liquid hydrocarbon products per day; 4) uranium
enrichment facilities; 5) facilities that can use, refine or convert
500,000 tons of coal or more per year, 6) electric transmission lines
greater than 69 kilovolts capacity, with certain exceptions for lines
covering short distances; 7) facilities for developing and using geotherma
resources capable of producing 25 million Btu per hour or more; 8)
facilities for in situ coal gasification; and 9) pipelines leading from
or to a facility as~3efined above. Facilities under exclusive federal
iatural gas facilities are also exempt.
■ from Port Angeles. Washington to
natural gas pipeline (which eventually
e) are covered only by MEPA and not
ilch I will describe later
?xempt. 0i 1 and i
Thus the Northern Tier oil pipelini
Minnesota, and the Northern Border
will connect with the Alaska pipelii
by MFSA. Mining -is covered by other
The Major Facility Siting Act has four provisions which are important
for impact mitigation. First, the Act requires all parties planning to
construct a facility (as defined by the Act) within the ensuing 10 years
to file a long-range plan with DNRC. All proposed facilities must be
adequately described in a long-range plan at least two years before DNRC
may accept ah application. The plans are submitted on April 1st of each
year and any new plans are generally covered by the press. The plans
thus serve to notify the public of any proposed facilities substantially
in advance of when they will actually be constructed.
Second, the Act .requires that an application for a facility must 6e
filed with the ONRC. " The application must include a description of the
proposed facility, with discussion of alternative-sites, an explanation
of need for a utility facility, discussion of efforts to promote
conservation and reasonable alternative energy sources, and a filing fee,
based on' the_ estimated construction cost of the facility, to finance the
state's evaluation.
Now if. you- will turn the flow chart (Figure 3) that describes the
application and certification steps, I will walk you through the process.
The ONRC has 90 days to determine whether an application is complete; that
Isrwhether it contains the information required by the law and associated
rules. When the DNRC accepts the application as complete, it then has
22 months (in the case of generating plants) or 12 months (in the case of
small transmission lines) to do an independent analysis, including
preparation of an EIS under MEPA, holding public hearings, and preparing
a final report to.the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation (BNRC).
In the meantime, the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
and the Board of Health have a year, plus an additional six months if
applicable, to determine whether the project will comply with air and
water quality standards, and other laws administered by the Department of
Health and Board of Health.
Note that this period of state evaluation contains opportunity for
working with the affected local communities to analyze impacts and
suggest mitigation strategies. It also has a mandatory public hearing
where the public can comment on DNRC's and the Department or Board of
Health findings.
Tlie third provision of the Siting Act that provides opportunities
for mitigation is the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation decision
as to whether to issue a certificate for project construction. The Board
is a seven-member citizen board, appointed by the Governor. A certificate
may not be granted unless the Board finds and determines: 1) the nature
of the probable environmental impact; 2) that the facility represents the
minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the state of available
technology and the economics of various alternatives; 3) that the
facility is consistent with regional plans for expanding utility grids
and will- serve system economy and reliability; 4) that the facility's
proposed location conforms to state and local laws and regulations;
5) that the Board of Health has certified that the facility will not
violate air and water quality standards and implementation plans; and
6} for a utility application, that the facility serves the public
interest, convenience and necessity. Need; environmental impact, benefits
to the applicant and the state, effects of resulting economic activity, and
effects on public health, safety and welfare must be considered in making
these determinations.
After receiving the DNRC
ard has 1-1 months to make its deci:
ocess, "it mdSt hold public hearing:
■ocedures.Act. These are contested
itnesses
) report on the proposed project, tne
sion. As part of its decision-making
ider .the Montana Administrative
e hearings involving attorneys.
The affected local government must be a
party to the proceedings or state why it will not be. The appl i<
of course, .participates:. Citizen groups and-industry groups usually
participate also. The Board must consider all the evidence and prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It has three options in granting
the Certificate: 1} Qeny a Certificate. 2) Issue a Certificate for the
project ^'proposed by the applicant, or 3) Issue a Certificate for the
project, hut with conditions attached. It is this power to condition
the Certifjcate that .enables the Board to specify mitigation that the.,
dpnl leant must" Follow, Certificates may be- revoked for failure to meet
s.afety standards or failure to comply with a,ny other conditions imposed
by the Board;' TJnl 1Sce Montana's mining laws/ the Board is not restricted
In the kinds' of mi ligation it can specify. Thus Socioeconomic and.
c/uUura.1 .mitigation. 'measures can be required.
2-58
Examples from the Certificate which was issued in 1976 for the Colstrip
coal-fired generating plants include two provisions affecting the Northern
Cheyenne Tribe. The Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation is about 20 miles
south of Colstrip. and the Tribe opposed the plants because of the potential
effects of air pollution, because of the impacts to their culture from a
large influx of construction workers, and because they had gotten only a
handful of jobs from construction of the earlier Colstrip plants. Thus
they felt they received no economic benefits, yet had to suffer the
adverse environmental and cultural effects of the plants. The Board's
conditions to the Certificate required Montana Power Company to work with
the Tribe to set up. at MPC's expense, an air quality monitoring program.
They also required that MPC work with the Tribe to establish training
pi-ograms to develop skilled labor so that Tribal members could be employed
during construction and operation of the coal plants. The result has
been that, while Northern Cheyennes obtained only a small percentage of
jobs on Colstrip Units One and Two, well over 100 have been consistently
employed on Units Three and Four.
Th(
provides
f a t 1 1 ng
to be re.
informat
fourth important provision of the Siting Act from the point of
litigation is the requirement that DNRC must monitor the
:ion and operation of the facility to ensure that the Board's
is are being met. The applicant must pay for the monitoring
If the Board finds that a condition is not being complied with,
•voke the Certificate. This enforcement, power has two benefits.
. ensures that mitigation efforts are carried out. Second, it
information on whether the mitigation measures are succeeding or
olv
the probti
in- whether unai
iluable for futi
ethe
the anticipated proble
pated problems developed.
mpact assessments.
il, i
long Range Plans provide adv.
) public
Persons planning to construct facilities in the ensuing ten years
must submit a long range plan each year identifying proposed
facilities. A facility must be identified in a long range plan
at least two years l-efore an application is filed.
■ Application, independent state study and public hearings under MEPA
provide information to public and opportunity for public carcrent
The law and rules specify a broad range of environmental, social,
economic, and cultural factors that must be included in the
analysis and reconnendation. . For utility applications, analysis
of need for the project is also included.
■ Board of Natural Resources and Conservation decision <
of Certificate includes public hearings- and ability to attach
conditions to a Certificate
The law specifies that a facility must meet the standard of
nuninum adverse impact, considering the nature and economics
of the various alternatives. For utility facilities, standards
for public convenience and necessity must be mat. Public again
has opportunity to comment. Board may approve or deny a
Certificate. Board has broad powers to specify mitigation,
measures as conditions to a Certificate.
- ^^onitoring facility construction and operation
DNPC monitors to ensure Certificate conditioi
Project sponsor pays costs of monitoring.
r- , -i /,- / v ? i
lu- ]
f . Mi .' ±- i
! »' • ( c t e < I C> c C J / st.' .
2-59
of S. N. Howard on the Port Unii
^rmii
October 7. 1982
Lloyd Emmons
Acting Project Manager r»/ T '
Fort Union Project i l -• ■ l
Bureau of Land Management ' , t\'-
111 N 32 Street -'»■ 'l
P.O. Box 30157
Billings. MT 59107 : J _
Thank you for sending me the July 1982 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement , the Air Quality Supplement, and other items on the Fort Union
Coal proposals.
The publications which I have, have displeased me. I find the writir
poor, the presentation of evidence fragmented, and the argument for strip-
mining coal not proven. Straight logic seems not to have been of concern
these publications.
To support cry critic
Ifficult to be specific
entente, paragraph after
.sin item by item would be a waste of I
paragraph, and page after page do nol
is difficult just to read the prose. A minor example: failuri
t between subject and verb occurs twice in the same paragraph i
"Development of new mines. . .have. . ." and "Each facility. . .an
eless use of language suggests careless thinking.
249
Thai perhaps expla
coal, i
of the material. Among i
rip-mining and attendent
jeopardy. The material <
e fragmentat
Lmpai ted bj
ems to be the one in greaze
found all through the DEIS
ra is rather lightly covered In j
To find all the material, the
and the like re water, I had to
all headings. Why is it that t
The damage to the water supplies will be irreversible and far
should strip-mining proceed on the scale projected. I should
to my questions: do these reports deliberately obfuscate the
about, and the projections of scientific inquiries into, hydn
look
ight and one-half
hrough the whole report
great
ike ,
fa
o^y <
250-r
be harmed. This is especially the case in
find any parts of the reports which demonsi
ranteed protection from strip-mining.
now? Today's paper had a story i
large scale. This will be a cli
o a renewable source of energy.
E.
250
Why should the Department of the Interior
urely? The public lands and the minerals bt
atlon. I hope they will not be given away,
are decreasing our dependence on OPEC. Let
similar domestic cartels which would rape tl
ses, or public lands at this time.
There are so many inconsistencies in the i
am overwhelmed at the prospect of listing them,
writing is poor, and the material is contradlcl
I do wish to commend those who put together th<
This, apart from a misleading photograph <
typical vli
fhe
,1 ..1.1, .
ell
is
They support my <
tory in many places. But
e maps, charts, and graphics
"typical" view, p. 9.
.ares of farmland.
Solvejg N. 1
11551 Ohio i
< lounty of McCone
County Commissioners
CIRCLE. MONTANA S9215
October 6th, 1982
251
of ficiab responsible for county government administration,
we would find the EIS much more helpful if it also included
the figures for county population and budget impacts.
Thank you for i
Edwin Moos, Member
. - ^ ■/£■<»- **J^/Z.,f£-. -up,
Melvm Skyberg, Mwrtber _/
Melvin Skyberg.
i -».'c^\
g* -jJ[RKyKFFlLIATED TRIBES • FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION
4 'liAJIaMdan.T^idQtsa andt^ifea/iciTj/iibee
TRIBAL BUSINESS COUNCIL
October 8. 1982
Loyd I
252
Acting Project Manager, Fort Union Pr<
Bureau of Land Management
222 N. 32nd Street
P.O. Box 30157
Billing.,, Montana 59107
After reviewing the "Air Quality Information
Supplemental to the Port Onion Coal Region Draft
Environmental Impact Statement" the Three Affiliated
Tribes feel there is sufficient reason to express
concern for the fate of air quality on the Fort
Bertbold Reservation. The North Dakota State
Department of Health has sent the Tribes three
"Notices of Intent to Issue an Air Pollution Control
involved will contribute to an exceedance of the
24-Hour PSD Claas I increment for aulfur dioxide for
the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and one will
National Wildlife Area.
If the 24-Hr PSD Class I increment in areas near the
reservation is exceeded by present or planned PSD
uaera the Tribea will be severely atifled in
developing the fossil fuel reaourcea on the Port
Berthold Reservation. Because the extent of the coal
uDde
jua
iul
following Air Quality legi
2-60
252
elopuent of
Sincerely your..
Tribal Buaineae Council
Lawrin H. Baker, Admuniatrator . NRD
Leo Brocke, Superintendent, Fort Berthold Agci
101.2
is ?
253
October 7, 1982
Mr. Bob Kaiser
Governor's Office
State Capitol
Bismarck, NO 58505
COMMENTS ON FORT UNION COAL FORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Highway Department has some concerns about the proposed development of coal
deposits in the state. Our analysis indicates that many of the routes that will
be impacted by the proposed developments are weaker and older sections of
highways. The statement did not address truck volumes which would enable us to
better determine what the Impacts upon these highways would be. In addition,
the proposed scheduling of improvements may conflict with the movement of
workers and materials to plant sites. Finally, the Killdeer rail branchline
rves the Killdeer-Ounn Center area is currently proposed for abandonment
■ithin thn
yea r
During the construction of the Coal Creek, Coyote, and Antelope Valley I power
plants, segments of highways directly impacted by the developments required
increased maintenance efforts. In one instance, resurfacing was required to
preserve the road from certain failure. This caused some congestion and
increased travel time for construction workers to the sites.
the department would 1
to anticipate the cons
consequences of these move-
would also aid the department,
ine from beinq abandoned and to
Id be generated should the line
These are the type of oco
In order to do this, more information o
is required. This will enable us to an
ments upon the affected highways. This
if it is necessary, to keep the Kt 1 1dee
determine the additional truck volumes i
be abandoned.
We feel that the movement of materials on the transportation system is an
important issue that the Department of Interior should address in the final
environmental impact statement. It is also important that the Highway Department
is provided as much lead time as possible prior to project construction in order
to protect the highways and to provide safe and uncongested movement of people
and goods
UTAH INTERNATIONAL INC
18 October 1982
Mr. Lloyd Emmons
Port Union Coal Project Staff
Bureau of Land Management
222 North 32nd Street
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, Montana $9107
Dear Mr. Burtons:
Utah International, Inc. (UTAH) is a diversified mining corporation with coal
mines in the Western United States. He have a substantial interest in the
Garrison Tract in North Dakota and are vitally interested in the leasing of
coal in the pt. Union Region. We have reviewed the Bureau of Land
Management's Environmental Impact statement on Federal Coal Leasing in the Pt.
Union Region and we would like to make three points.
Pirst, we commend the Bureau of Land Management for their fine effort in the
Environmental Impact statement in identifying all the ma]or areas of concern
and assessing the regional impacts associated with coal development within the
Ft. Union Region.
Second, UTAH supports the preferred leasing alternative (alternative three) of
832.8 million tons of federal coal for new production in 1983 which includes
the leasing of federal coal on the Garrison Tract. This level of leasing will
insure free competition and allow the marketplace to determine the allocation
and development of the coal resources of the region.
Finally, on the issue of wetland reclamation, UTAH recognizes the importance
of wetlands as wildlife habitat, and believes that wetlands can be
successfully reclaimed, and that mining and reclamation can provide an
opportunity for enhancement of the wetland resources.
Attached are UTAH'S detailed written comments on the Environmental Impact
Statement. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views.
254
255
256
257
258
259
COMMENTS UN THE FORT UNION COAL REGION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
and AIR QUALITY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENT
a. Annual production should be changed from 5.7 MM TPY to 2.8 MM TPY.
Current market conditions indicate that a 400 MW mine-mouth power
plant will be built in conjunction with the devlopment of the
Garrison Tract. Preliminary engineering estimates show that 2.8 MM
TPY will be needed to supply an electric generating station of that
size. This production figure is consistent with figures presented
in Table 1-3 on page SO for facilities of similar size (e.g. Coyote
|1 and Big stone Generating Stations).
b. The acreage required for the mine facility sould be changed from 240
The mine facility acreage figure is high and should be changed to
160 acres to be consistent with the mine facilility acreage
requirements for the other tracts.
The electric power plant non-potable water needs should be cut from
12,000,000 gallons per day to 6,000,000 galllons per day to reflect
the needs of a 400 MW plant.
On page 73 of the Northern Great Plair
E : i ectE. of coal Development Ln bhe jj n _
of Interior, 1975), the water requirements for a 1000 MW power plant
are estimated at between 10,900,000 and 17,200,000 gallons of water
per day (assuming 360 days of operation per year). This range of
water usage is in line with the figure of 12,000,000 gallons per day
presented in the EIS for a 1000 MW facility. But since the Garrison
Tract is only planning a facility of 400 MW, as stated on page 51 of
the EIS, the water figure should be cut in half to provide a more
timate of water usage.
i should be changed from
Page 93, Table 2-9. The Garrison Tract is shown t
one cultural resource site but the type of site is
table.
Page 123, Column 2, Paragraphs 3 and 4.
Utah International, Inc. recognizes the importance of wetlands as
wildlife habitat, but strongly believes that not only can wetlands be
successfully reclaimed, but that mining and reclaimation provide an
opportunity for enhancement of the wetland resources.
2-61
259
260
dying <
be recognized that all wetlands of the Pothole Region ate slowly
: they proceed through stages of natural succession from deep
water, to shallow water, to dryland. Succession has been expedited in
many areas since agricultural practices were introduced. Plowing of
adjacent lands, with the attendent erosion, has contributed to the
import of soil into the wetlands. This has contributed in large measure
to the decline in deep water habitats and the attendent decline in
"diving" on deep-water ducks, such as canvasbacks, an issue of great
concern to sportsmen. This concern has resulted in the establishment of
man-made wetlands by government agencies, conservation organizations and
private individuals across the Prairie Pothole Region (Wildlife Use of
Man-made wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region: A Selected Annotated
Bibliography; South Dakota Cooperative wildlife Research Unit, Technical
Bulletin No. 2, October 1981). It should be noted that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has spent millions of dollars in dredging and
modifying wetlands to enhance waterfowl production.
Many wetland ecologists agree that if a similar contour and surface
retention capability is restored, natural succession will restore the
wetland in 15 to 20 years. This process could be accelerated with the
use of reclamation procedures (e.g., topsoiling, seeding, transplanting
and fertilization). Wetland enhancement can be achieved by combining a
series of small scattered wetlands in the course of reclamation to form
one large, deeper wetland. This would provide improved habitat for
deep-water ducks, while at the same time increase the efficiency of
farming operations by reducing the number of small wetlands that
interfere with efficient farming methods.
Thus, it is clearly within our technical capability not only to reclaim
wetlands, but to address regional wetland concerns and to enhance
wetlands or optimize them to benefit certain featured wildlife species.
Page 5-6, Table 2-2. The title of Table 2-2 should be changed to read.
Proposed Intergral Vistas Associated with the Theodore Roosevelt
The word proposed should be added to the title of Table 2-2 because no
final agency action has been taken on the list of integral vistas (as
discussed on Page 5-5, Column 1, Paragraph 2). Currently, these
integral vistas have no legislative standing and this should be clearly
indicated in both the text and associated tables in the entire dooiMent.
Sidney Chamber
of Commerce
■ ■ ■
■ -,,_: ■. I ■ ■ , ■
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
memorandum
Division of Trust, Land Operations t- —
Comments concerning Draft Environmental Impacts on Fort union
Regional Coal (OES 82/17)
State Director, Bureau of Land Management. Billings
Billings Area Oirector
^T ;
/ Ki '
Tour «£fTce
261
262
263
Under provision of Alternative 3-6. Meridian Coal Company would
be involved in a coal exchange for the purposes of developing a
methanol facility. The water which would be required for the
synfuel development would originate from the Fort Peck 0am
reservoir.
The Sioux and Assiniboine have paramount water rights to that
water. Therefore, we urge consultation with the Sioux and Assini-
boine Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation concerning this matter.
In addition, we recommend consultation with the Fort Berthold and
Turtle Mountain Tribes, as well as other Indian down stream water
users.
The Fort Peck Tribes are considering redesignation to a Class I
air quality for the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Therefore,
provision to adequately address this standard would have to be
applied to stack emissions from the Meridian methanol project.
The relatively close proximity of the towns of Wolf Point and
Poplar to the Meridian proposed minisite and methanol plant
indicates a potential for increased population. If Meridian
should reach the full production phase, the influx of people
associated with the project could apply significant strain upoi
each towns municipal services. Consultation with the Sioux am
Assiniboine Tribes is recommended
8uy US Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings PI.
State of North Dakota
October IS, 1982
The Honorable James Matt
Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interii
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Secretary:
ntal Impact Statement for the
My office, through my representative on the Fort Union Regional Coal
Team, has been involved with Bureau of Land Management state and regional
offices in holding two public information meetings and one formal hearing
in North Oakota designed to receive public comment on the Fort Union Coal
Team's preferred leasing alternative and the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. The meetings went well, and public comment was generally pos-
itive.
Aside from the draft air quality section, I am pleased with the sys-
tematic and detailed approach used by the Coal Team in the leasing process.
The results indicate to me that the majority of our residents have no ob-
jection to the leasing plan outlined in "Preferred Alternative No. 3" pro-
posed by the Fort Union Regional Coal Team.
Barring any new impact, I am looking forward to a June '83 lease
which would include all the North Dakota tracts in the Fort Union Reg
Coal Team's "Preferred Leasing Alternative No. 3."
If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.
Kindest regards.
sale
^iL ^
2-62
dii
MERIDIAN LAND & MINERAL COMPANY
October 18, 1962
264
David Darby
Bureau of Land Man
genet
PO Box 30157
Billing*, MT 59107
Dear Mr. Darby:
Meridian Land t. Hi
leral
Company ■-
ould Ilk
e to auboi
t the fol lowing
comments on
the Draft Fort Uni
on Co
I Region
Envirom
sental Imp«
ct Statement o
July 1982.
Our interest in t
terns fro
m our pos
tion ss a maj
or owner of
lignite reserves i
n the
region c
nd as s
party to
the proposed c
al exchange
near Circle, Mont
na.
The checkerboard
pattern o
our ownership
means that
our ability to manage
erals i
governed
by federal c
oal leasing
activity in the r
egioa
Unless
the go
r leases or
exchanges, it will
be ■-. i
fficult t
a mine the Meridian
controlled coa
1.
Meridian commends
BLH
for its
9 t tempt
to discusi
possible imp
cts of the
the
ort Uniot
region
a very difficu
t task when
the level of deve
opaec
t which
. likely to occur
is hard to forecast . In
addition, the BLH
h«» c
ot had s
te-spec
fie plan.
for each tract
from which
they could detern
ne po
tential i
mpacts.
Hoi - i Chi
tanding some p
oblems, the
BLH haa made the
beat
of this
taak.
The folic*
ing comments i
eflect some
concern, and changes Mer
id i an wou
Id like
o aee addr
essed in the fi
nal EIS.
1. Meridian's possible
coal de
elopment
irele West are
a should be
clarified and diit
logu i
hed from
hypoche
tic.l gene
ric synfuel sc
narios used
for the purpose
of wc
assessments. Ea
r. Meridian
supplied BLH with
for Circle
West which we
elt was the
which 1
endian
would ha
rol should
deve lopment occur
> slterns
tive we
supplied
was a plant
facility to
manufacture 2.500
or 18.000 barrel
s, per day
This number
vas based on the
■ostil
ility th
t our s
iscer subs
diary, Burling
on Northern
Mail road, might c
nvert
some di
sel loc
^motives t
1 methanol, an
represents
easary fo
r such a
demand .
La the market s
plant of this type nil
not be
built be
cause the
economics are
unfavorable.
Should the fuel si
n deteric
in in the
;uture, the eco
nomics might
change sod make m
Ihum:
1 convers
ion a v
able plan
In any event
, given the
lack of formal p
and leng
hy perm
i tt ing requirements, cos
mine* and
conversion facilit
Lea p
robably w
ill not
be under ..
onstruction at
Circle West
Any other scenario in the DEIS document relating to Circle West, including the
generic 85,000 barrels per day synfuel facilities, should be designated as
hypothetical for the purpose of BLH's assessment . We do not see development
at this magnitude ss that most likely to occur, and it is hoped the public
would keep that in mind when reviewing the discussion and associated impscts.
We would point out that a proposed plant *t 85,000 barrel* per day is capable
of nearly 2003 of BN Railroad's total diesel fuel demand today.
265
266
267
2. BLH's impsct assessment should address the likely level of development
which might occur in th* future as a result of this leasing action. As
currently written, the DEIS addresses only the highest level of development
and assumes that every teased tract would be developed . We support the need
for this analysis and commend the BLH for its attempt to take on this
difficult task. Our concern, however, is that such an analysis does not give
the decision-maker or the public a very realistic picture of the likely level
poor condition of current markets, it is unlikely that the number of tracts
and Levels of production comprising the various leasing alternatives studied
impacts will actually be generated by increased levels of leasing because it
is unlikely that all leased tracts will reach producton. This means that the
larger the leasing alternative is, the greater the overstatement of production
and resulting impacts is likely to be.
tongly suggesi
the BLH
C I OS.
fol
al
3. The DEIS Summary (p. ii) and
identi fy and separate the temporar
requires that an EIS identify shot
has been accomplished. This is
5 (p. ii) is unintelligibl
compliance with federal
destroying a port:
(particularly
. The final EIS could use this
possible production levels from
would clearly put impact levels
mmariiing impscts und
likely to occur. Sui
utes would not all*
Valley." We suggesi
analys
regarding impaci
Many of the
268
of Chapti
definttio
of this n.
6. All discussions of environmental
of the impacts from the preferred
alternatives in the ideal. We wou
for all
, and figures in the Comparison o
unclear. Host of the problem seems Ci
soale for the units of analysis withii
efinition and rationale is contained ii
I, therefore, that the BLH remove thi
63-73) from Chapter 1 and place it a
onsequences should contain an snalysi
mp let ing thi:
ss. This is i
for
269
difficult and time-consuming t
most of the trscts in the region are nonexistent. We are concerned, howeve
that the air quality discussions (including those in the supplement) have n
clearly identified the impacts from the preferred alternative. T
information on the location and degree of impscts given in the discuss i
section (pp. 5-16 to 5-32) i* extremely difficult to follow and digest into
useable form. We would recommend that the BLH add figures to the Air Quail
Supplement showing comparable information for the preferred si terns t ive ss
currently in Supplement Figures 3-2 through 3-13. The existing figures in t
Supplement are useful and , in combination with additional figures
Alternative 3, would provide a more complete analysis. We would al
recommend that the BLM restructure the discussions in the Air Qua 1 1
Supplement to conform to the basic format used by the other resource progra
Chapter 3. This format is easy to follow and brings the analysis in
nfort
ith
gan
270
271
M hi :. I [ onaequei
the
it ion from mining companies; howev
DEIS to subtract this compensstio
i the DEIS seems to be solely on loi
annual peak year loss in net iacoi
snge from $160 t
gan
We would :
on on agricultur.
variables whi.
thesi
Kl-
diffi.
a)
en given I
at think enough discussion ha
t new populations might be handled by "compan
wo" approaches; snd b) the DEIS should attempt to quantify for eacl
ternative the Montana coal impact money available for grants. The DEIS ha;
entified its assumptions regarding population locations and tax returns
iwever, it does not discuss the extent to which company towns and impac
ants could mitigste the described economic impacts. We believe the publi.
ou Id be made aware of the extent to which these available opt :
t igate the impacts.
Id
272
Meridian would like to commend the BLH for its creative use of graphic
lustrations in the DEIS. The figures, tables, and maps in this document
tempt to complement snd summsriie the text with remarkable ingenuity. We
e concerned, however, that some of the figures (particularly Figures 1-1
rough 1-17 ) con t sin so much information in such a clever format that they
e misleading. When looking at some of these figures it is difficult to tell
hich time periods they cover , whether they include or exclude baseline data,
hat some of the units of analysis are. Most of these problems could be
f ied by amending the titles, by adding explanations to the legends , and
by moving Figures 1-10 through 1-17 to the end of Chapter 3. Our primary
xchsnge or the Woodson PRLA must increase the tons of coal mined and the
mpacts. Host of this stems from the fsct that the DEIS has described these
lternatives in conjunction with Alternative 3. but has not clearly separated
he impacts of Alternative 3 from Meridian's proposed plan or from BLH's
that impscts from the Meridian-BLM exchange are equal to leasing the
by-paas tracts plus eight other tracts, whereas the potential impacts
bu table to the exchange are only a small fraction of this. The text
to be less confusing on this point than the figures. We would reconmend
the BLM revise the figures to make the distinction clearer between
Alt<
3 le
ing -
the BLH will
"»•' ■
<?Jt*4+.1X» X&eX
2-63
Hr. Lloyd Emmons, Acting Project Manager/,- -f**"") h> ''•'^"'
Fort Union Project, Bureau of Land Mar^graentHf «i\ V
222 N. 32nd Street
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, Montana 59107
g OCT I - ga
ouicai; uj Land
I was unable to st
Mt. on Sept. 29, 1982,
aj^pt the Draft SIS. I
to agriculture and the i
•nd the ?ort Union DraTt^nr" Hearing in Glendive,
it I nave a few comments that I would like to maki
un particularly concerned about off site impacts
scial impacts to our communities.
273
274
275
ien my great grandfather moved to this p.rt of the country and home-
13 miles southwest of Lindsay he quickly learned that only the
at had an easily available source of water succeeded. My fa-
mily ^nd I still 'arm this original homestead and now, as then, water is am
absolute necessity to our farm and ranch operation.
I am concerned about industrial claims en Eastern Montana water, parti-
cularly ground water sources. Ha rum cattle near a proposed facility siting;.
As an off-site water user, where do I stand if an industrial water user uses,
or iegrid^s, the fiter that I depend upon for my livelihood.
I realize that the BLM does net deal with water rights, however, you do
address the issue of water quality in the Draft EIS. You state "mining ac-
tivity in all of the alternatives would have varying degrees of impacts upon
the groundwater resource;" that "the chemical quality of the grourtiwater could
be changed;" that "the number of wells that would experience water level
(fowndrawo or have the quality degraded varies from 1*5 to 731,;" and that this
will mean a "higher operating expanse and maintainance costs to the water
user." '/hat you are actually saying is that you do not know what is going
to hapten; that you cannot accurately predict tha adverse ai'fects brought
on by industrial development. Tou do assume me however, that it will cost
me more, and even with the increased cost I may never be assured of the
original ouality or quantity of water that 1 had before development.
I am also concerned with the degradation o? our air quality in Eas-
tern Montana. What effects will increased SOg -amissions have on crop yield?
I have read studiss indicating -.hat cro- yield may decrease by as uu
15**. "Jh^t ibout -.he -rabies zi sold r2l« Tsu say ,,j-. "the enviK -
ocnaerusr nnot >;sily be predicted" and that "coh-
itoring studies should be ccntinued... p-r-.icul.j-l7 in Kontar.a." In other
ces or recourse if the worst case develops.
I withdrew fro- an Bngin-eriR£ PhD. program to return to farminj and
ranching pri^rlly because of social values. As an example I embrace the
Western doctrine of 1 man's handshake is his bond. However, I have quickly-
learned that this custom is completely 'oreign to anyone conneated with the
Energy business. I fear that -dth the projected industrial development of
this area, the social values that I and many others cherish will be des-
troyed .
276
According to your figures, populations in some of the ™n towns will
double or triple. Circle, for instance, is expected to grow rrom 900 at
present to 9000 in alternative 6, a 10 fold increase. As an off-site Land-
owner, I am concerned as to the source of community service money, money
which has trditionally come from property (land) taxes. The Draft EIS is
very unclear as to what is included in the fiscal balance calculations.
Since the Draft EIS figures budget* only for the cities, it may be assumed
that the county and school district budgets were not included which may
greatly underestimate the taxation imoact on off-site landowners.
In conlcusicn, I am
the Draft EIS in respect to off-site impact:
ty, and cost of social programs and deeply
and irreversable loss of our social values
many
quantity, water quali-
bout the probable
way of life.
'^JLz?'£"Jkz
TEIISCHWINDEN
*tn!r of JHnntana
Stfficr of lip (Seormoi
Mrlcna. Bonlann 59620
October 19. 1982
Hr. Lloyd Emmons
Acting Project Manager
Fort Union Project
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, Montana 59107
Oear Mr. Emmons:
The A1r Quality Bureau of the Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences has reviewed the September 1982, Air Quality
Information Supplemental to the Fort Union Coal Region Draft EIS and the
August 1982, Air Quality and Climate Technical Report. We have also had
a chance to review comments made by the North Dakota State Department of
Health in their September 27, 1982, letter.
The following comments are made with regard to the documents.
277
278
279
As stated
the documei
altemativi
that a trai
impact !
1 North Dakota's letter (comment 1) the purpose of
; is to study the desirability of various leasing
. and their impact on air quality. In the event
was leased and a facility was proposed, another
The Montana Air Ouality Bureau wishes to disclaim direct
involvement in the development of the modeling study plan as
implied on page S-ll of the Supplemental. The Bureau did,
however, attend meetings and expressed its opinion in regard
to the modeling. Information was supplied from time-to-time
at BLM's request.
On page S-3 of the Supplemental, it is correctly stated that
the SO2 baseline date for Montana was established as of
August 7, 1977. However, it should be noted that the State
Air Quality Bureau has proposed a new rule which would set a
statewide SO2 baseline date as of March 26, 1979. The final
PSD rule may contain a county-by-county or an impact area
mechanism for triggering baseline dates.
280
281
282
283
The modified version of COMQC and MESOPUFF are not EPA-approved
models but may be the best models available for regional
modeling. As stated in North Dakota's letter (comment 7} use
of MESOPUFF "requires EPA approval in each PSD new source
review." Two questions arose concerning COMQC:
Is it ■
ilid to composite STAR decks from sever
to produce a STAR deck for the region?
b. Can CDMQC be used for regional modeling? Or should
this model be used for receptor distances less than
50 km?
5. Appendix F is unclear as noted in North Dakota's letter
(comment 5). On page S- 14 of the Supplemental it is stated
that "other major sources near the Fort Union Coal Region,
such as the Colstrip and Poplar River power plants, are
included in the 1997 baseline inventory." It appears from
Appendix F that Colstrip Units 3 and 4 have not been included
in the 1997 baseline inventory.
6. We agree with North Dakota's comment 12. The 1975 baseline
emission sources impact upon air quality may be included
twice. With regard to measured background concentrations,
this problem may be more significant for North Dakota than
Montana. This is due to locations of monitors and level of
activity.
7. A discussion of the emission estimations would be helpful.
This would include the emission factors used, production
rates, and control techniques or efficiencies. This type of
information could be included in the Technical Report.
Thank you for the oppon
ZmZU
2-64
COMMENTS OF THE ASS1NIBOINE (, SIOUX TRIBES OF THE
FORT PECK RESERVATION ON FORT UNION COAL REGION DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
pronghorn antelope, and
tory game birds.
ety of birds, including migr
The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation submit these comments on the Fort Union Coal
Region draft EIS because we believe that the draft EIS does
not provide enough information to adequately measure the
rLTiental effects of alternatives under consideration,
and that the environmental effects which are revealed by the
draft EIS are sufficiently serious as to warrant seltction
of jn alternative with minimum possible ■•■■-
The In
of the Tribes
The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes occupy the Fort
Peck Reservation located in northeastern Montana. The
Reservation is in the Fort Union Region, approximately 30 to
50 miles north of the proposed leasing sites in Montana.
ng would occur on tracts south of the Reservation in
all .aternatives except alternative one.
The remoteness of the Fort Peck Reservation has so
far protected its natural environment. The air is relatively
clean and pure; there remain areas of natural vegetation
typical of the shortgrass prairie habitat, with some tim-
bered areas; and the Reservation supports a diverse wildlife
population including white-tailed and mule deer, migratory
284
Development in the region threatens the environ-
ment of the Reservation and to the extent possible the
Tribes have sought to preserve their natural resources. In
particular, concern for the air quality has led the Tribe to
seek Class I status under the Clean Air Act for the Reserva-
tion. That redesignation is under active consideration, and
approval is expected shortly.
The Fort Union Coal Region leasing and development
potentially will have a serious impact on the Reservation.
Air pollution resulting from the project will degrade the
quality of the Reservation air, in some instances exceeding
the Class I increments on the Reservation. Wildlife on the
Reservation, especially migratory wildlife, may suffer as a
result of injury to habitats south of the Reservation. One
of the towns to be affected by influxes of workers. Wolf
Point, is the largest population center on the Reservation.
In addition, tribal members, as residents of the area, have
an interest in the environment of the area around the Reser-
vation. For example, tribal members use the fishing and
recreational facilities of Fort Peck Lake.
285
II. The draft EIS does not adequately document the
scope and number of possible violations of NAAQS
and PSD standards.
Although the draft EIS focuses almost exclusively
on whether and to what extent the alternatives under con-
sideration would violate air quality standards or PSD incre-
ments, it fails on at least three counts to document the
full extent that the proposals would violate those standards.
First, the worst case episodes were selected for
analysis on the basis of the impact at Theodore Roosevelt
National Memorial Park (TRNP) . The draft EIS states spe-
cifically that there might be events which would have larger
impacts on other Class I areas. TRNP was selected for the
worst case analysis "for the obvious reason of its status as
a PSU Class I area located virtually in the middle of the
Fort Union Coal Region." (DEIS, page S-16.) However,
examination of the wind rose for Dickinson, North Dakota
(Figure 2-3) shows that the prevailing winds are from the
west and northwest, with the second most common winds from
the south and southeast. TRNP is located west of the ex-
tensive proposed lease tracts in North Dakota and far enough
south so that it misses much of the pollution dispersed when
_y
the winds are from the south. Thus, while centrally
located, it may not be the best choice location for the
_1/ TRNP south unit is south of all but a few of the trac
proposed for leasing. TRNP north unit is just a few miles
north of most tracts -- not enough to bring it within the
dispersion pattern for south or southeasterly winds.
285
286
worst case analysis. It would have been more informative to
analyze the air quality at a location southeast of the bulk
of the leased lands and another north of the leased lands.
Examination of worst case episodes at TRNP may also result
in understatement of the impact on Class II areas closer
_v
to the proposed lease sites.
Furthermore, there is no information from which it
could be determined whether the worst case events selected
were typical, unusually good or unusually bad. They were
selected because they were the worst cases in 1964, the year
for which the most complete and detailed data were available.
(DEIS, page S-16.) However, some comparison of 1964 with
other years is needed to determine whether 1964 was a typical
year. If not, then conclusions based on that year are
meaningless.
ally, the modeling outcomes admittedly conta
factor of two. DEIS, page S-15. To provid
ure of possible violations of Clean Air Act
is potential error should be taken into acco
complete
standards
_2/ It is worth noting that in the two worst case events for
which contour maps were drawn, pollution dispersed to the
rth, and that PSD viola
projected for both For
__}/ Furthermore, violations of Class II standards may be
cealed in the 10 km. grid size used for the modeling. Thi
grid size is larger than the scale for some impacts. Thus
the average effect in a 10 km. grid near a leasing site ma
be less than the most serious impact in that grid.
2-65
The contour maps should have lines at increments equal to
one-half the increment which would be a violation, and
287
"possible" violations should be noted when increments twice
those showing would violate PSD or NAAQS requirement. This
is not done in the draft EIS.
Thus, although it focused primarily on identifying
possible violations of Clean Air Act standards, the draft
288
EIS does not succeed in fully determining the extent of
possible violations. Violations could well turn out to be
more frequent and widespread than the draft EIS indicates.
III. The draft EIS does not summarize the air quality
effects of the proposed alternatives in sufficient
detail to permit an evaluation of the overall air
quality effects of those alternatives.
In focusing on the extent to which development
under the proposed alternatives will violate national
ambient air quality standards or prevention of significant
deterioration standards, the air quality portion of the draft
^oo
EIS fails to provide the information necessary to evaluate
259
the overall effects on air quality of the proposed develop-
ment. This is a crucial shortcoming. The National Environ-
mental Policy Act requires that the agency prepare a de-
tailed statement of all environmental effects of any proposed
action. The EIS must be sufficiently complete to enable
intelligent evaluation of the action. If compliance with
other environmental statutes were sufficient NEPA would be
superfluous.
289
ttempt to describe a number of potential envi
™«
ental ef
ects which it concedes are or may be sigmfic
ant.
For
xample, the discussion of organic compound em
issi
ons amou
eludes that the data to
available and that (DEIS,
size of gasifica
-ion
ities associated with
res o
the Fort Un
on Coal
;a of
potential co
icern and
illy
evaluated as
comp
eted, and as
specific
ts at
e proposed.
Due to the
and liquefa
development
Region, thi
should be m
This casual dismissal of the problem is unacceptable
The necessary work will have to be done eventually; it
should be done now. After the leasing is approved and the
development is underway, the pressure to build the gasifica
tion and liquefacti
enormous. Any adverse en
at that stage may well be
plants
utili
ntal
pra
al
M< i]
the coal will be
formation turned up
levant to the decisions as a
iany of those projects may be
with private funds, and thus
Since there is as yet no
ially unregu-
undertaken by private partie
would not be subject to NEPA
NAAQS for these emissions, they would be essent
lated. Clearly, the time to evaluate this envi
pact of the Fort Union coal development is befo
development begins.
_V Unless the entire project, including the particular facil-
ities, is to be completed without any analysis of this problem.
7
Another environmental impact not adequately ad-
dressed by the draft EIS is acid rain. The EIS concedes
that increasing acidity would eventually consume the buffer-
ing capacity of local soil, and that emissions of S02 and NO.
290
will contribute to acidity of precipitation. DEIS at S-36.
But little attention was devoted to attempting to estimate
the effects, even within broad ranqes. The only information
provided is that which turned up in the modeling study
directed toward visibility problems.
Effects of the air pollution on weather and on
water quality were dismissed with the assertions that the
information necessary to assess them was not available.
There was no attempt to collect data, or to determine the
?Q1
range of possible effects. To ignore a potentially sig-
CL.ZJ 1
nificant problem because of lack of information about it
will not m.ike it go away. Again, the time to collect i_tie
information is now, before the decisions are made and become
irreversible.
Those problems and impacts which are addressed by
the draft EIS are not adequately described or analyzed so as
to make determination of the project's desirabiltiy --as
292
opposed to its compliance with the Clean Air Act -- pos-
sible. Thus, the discussion of dispersion of total suspended
ilates <TSP) , S02 and N02, focuses exclusively on
whether NAAQS or PSD standards will be violated. There is
292
293
no discussion of the differences in impacts between those
alternatives which do not violate a particular standard. For
example, contour maps showing the SO- 24-hour average incre-
mental concentrations for the December 4-5 event are given
for alternatives 1 and 5, and for the July 4-5 event for
alternative 6 . However, maps showing the impact of the
other alternatives are not given, so comparison of those
alternatives with each other or with the alternatives pre-
_v
sented is not possible.
In addition, there is no attempt to determine what
the average or normal pollution effects will be. The EIS
looked only at 3 two-day worst case events; we have no way
of knowing whether the normal situation is significantly
better than those worst cases, about the same, or, for some
areas, worse. The normal pollution level is clearly im-
portant in measuring the overall environmental impacts of a
J/
project.
The draft EIS
the effects the concent
ns no discussion whatsoeve
of pollutants resulting fr
5/ Figures at some
provided does not pe
6/ The worst cases
cations could suffer
were not the worst c
locations for some of the other alter-
the text; but again the information
rmit a comparison of all alternatives.
were worst cases at TRNP. Other lo-
worse pollution under conditions which
ase for purposes of that analysis.
7/ Nor is there any discussion at all of impacts in Canada.
The contour lines on many of the maps extend across the
Canadian border; but there is no discussion of Canadian
standards or whether they will be violated.
2-66
293
294
the project would have. Thus, for example, there is no dis-
cussion of the impact on vegetation which might be expected
from SO, resulting from the proposed coal development.
While this information may not be directly relevant to
determining whether the development would violate the Clean
Air Act, it is certainly crucial to evaluating the overall
environmental impact of the project and determining whether
development should proceed.
The analysis of secondary air pollution impacts
associated with population and economic growth is also in-
adequate. No information is provided on the air pollution
impacts during the period of peak population due to con-
struction. The draft EIS states only that "later years
(after peak construction) were selected on the premise that
the effect of vehicle emissions on ambient air quality is
expected to be greater once the facilities * • * become
operational and are themselves discharging emissions * * *"
(DEIS at S-39) . However, all of the comparisons are with
baseline vehicular emissions,- there are no comparisons which
m the other facilities contemplated
ing. Furthermore, in some com-
ons might be locally more sig-
ilities. Evaluation of these
nt to the selection of the most
depend ■
the emissions f
tion with the le
munities the vehicle emis
nificant than the other f
temporary effects is rele
desirable alternative. They should be included in the EIS.
In addition, the analysis of secondary air pollution impact
294
does not even consider TSP emissions due to dust from un-
paved roads, construction, etc. That these effects could be
significant is illustrated by significant secondary TSP
effects found in the draft EIS for the Unitah Basin synfuels
project. Unitah Basin Synfuels Development, Draft Technical
Report -- Air Quality, 5-87. These effects should be evalu-
ated, both for the peak construction period, and for the
permanent increased population after construction is complete
f the EIS should
1 effects,
In sum, the air quality porti
focus more on describing the overall en
and comparing those effects for the different alternatives.
The purpose of the EIS is to allow evaluation and comparison
of the alternatives from an environmental standpoint, so
that environmental factors are adequately factored into the
final decision. The draft EIS falls short of this goal,
while possible violations of the Clean Air Act are relevant
and important, other information is also needed.
IV. The draft EIS shows that the en
effects of large scale leasing
are sufficiently serious that a
with little or no additional le
selected.
ing should be
Notwithstanding the deficiencies discussed above,
the draft EIS, particularly the air quality portion, demon-
strates that most of the proposed alternatives will have
substantial detrimental effects on the environment of the
region, including the environment of the Fort Peck Indian
294
Reservation,
an alternati
ably alterna
development
Reservation.
is reason the Tribes urge selection of
minimal additional coal development, pre
The Tribes are strongly opposed to any
racts in Montana south of the Fort Peck
The air quality supplement to the draft EIS shows
that every alternative, including alternative 1, will result
in violations of air quality standards promulgated under the
Clean Air Act. Moreover, each alternative involving more
development also increases the number and/or scope of such
violations — there is a direct trade-off between the scope
of the leasing and the loss of air quality. Thus preservation
of air quality requires minimal leasing.
Alternative 1 violates three Clean "Air Act stan-
dards: the NAAQS for TSP (24-hour), the PSD Class I standard
for SO, (24-hour) , and the PSD Class II standard for TSP
(annual) . Alternative 2 violates these and adds a significant
impact on visibility of TRNP. Alternative three (with or
without the Woodson PRLA and Meridian Exchange proposals)
violates the above standards, plus the PSD Class I standard
for SO, (3-hour). Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 add violations of
the PSD Class I standard for SO- (annual). It is clear
8/ Indeed, alternatives 4, 5 and 6 viola
Class I standards for SO,. Clearly S02 em
serious environmental problem with this de
all of the PSD
294
that exte
of these
pollution
ve development should
icipated widespread vi
_?/
ntrol laws.
10/
Furthermore, the proposed leasing project would
have serious adverse impacts on air quality at the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation itself. Alternatives 5 and 6 would cause
violations of PSD Class I standards for S02 (24-hour) over a
wide area of the Reservation. DEIS, page S-27; and figures
3-7 and 3-10. Under alternative 6 the incremt
in SO, would reach three times the Class I inc
addition, although the data and the contour maps are not
presented in the draft EIS, it appears the increments on the
Reservation may approach the point of violations within the
margin of error of the modeling for several other alternative
In any event, it is clear that all of the alternatives for
which contour maps are shown (except alternative 1) will
result in increases in SO, and/or TSP on the Reservation,
with a resultant degredation of the air quality of the
_!/
The potential violations of the Clean Air Act may
more extensive; the draft EIS does not adequately
nent them; see part II above.
be
10/
The Fort Peck Indian Reservation is not yet desig
Class I area, but such designation is under currei
ideration and the Tribes expect it will be so desic
at
t
ated shortly.
2-67
The draft EIS also discus
impacts on the Fort Peck Reservatio
will be serious. While most of the
destruction of wildlife habitat in i
other significant.
Impacts on wildlife
impacts result from
near the proposed
mining sites. Fort Peck will be affected. Migratory wild-
life and migratory bird habitat will be destroyed; this nay
have an adverse effect on the wildlife of the Fort Peck
Reservation. Wildlife on the Reservation will also be
directly affected by increased hunting and poaching on or
near the Reservation. In addition the Tribes are concerned
about possible impacts of the coal development on the fishery
at Fort Peck Lake. While the lake is not on the Reserva-
tion, it is close, and is an important source of recreation
for many tribal members .
The economic and social impact of a large influx
of workers to the area also gravely concerns the Tribes.
Wolf Point, a community which is expected to bear a portion
of the influx if the Montana sites are developed, is the
largest population center on the Reservation. The influx
would strain available resources, quite probably at the
expense of the Indians and other long time residents. The
draft EIS indicates (in Appendix H, page SA-11) that Roose-
velt County's population is expected to increase by as much
as A percent under some alternatives. Essentially all of
that growth will be in communities like Wolf Point, Poplar,
and Brockton, which ar
Peck Reservation, wher
the southern boundary of the For
st tribal members reside.
The draft EIS convinces the Tribes that the en-
al consequences, to the region and the Reservation,
are not worth the potential benefits from the development of
these resources. The Tribes urge that a minimal development
alternative, preferably alternative 1, be adopted. The
Tribes strongly oppose extensive coal leasing, especially of
the tracts in Montana.
Respectfully submitted.
David Johnson
Office of Environmenta
Protection
Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes of the Fort
Peck Reservation
P.O. Box 506
Poplar, Montana 59255
October 18, 1982
Reid Peyton Chambers
Kevin A. Griffin
SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE
1050 31st Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
(202) 342-9131
Attorneys fo
United Slates Department of the Interior
BUR-0FIAH°MRHA NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
m OCT 25 W 2*Mhington, d.c. 20210
•Hssara*
utl I » 1982
rtenorandui
To: Director, Bureau of Land Management
Through:' Assistant Secretary for Fish and wildlife arxi
From Director, National Park Service
Subjei
NPS Comments on the Fort Union Coal Rasin Draft EIS
295
We have reviewed the subject deis to determine the potential effects of
leasing in the Fort Union Basin on National Park Service units in North
Dakota. The following comments are submitted for your consideration.
Air Quality
As you are aware, the National Park Service recently performed a technical
analysis to determine whether or not a certification of no adverse impact
on Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the wilderness portion of Lostwocd
National Wildlife Refuge should be granted to five proposed sources in North
Dakota. That analysis showed that the proposed sources would not adversely
impact the air quality related values of the class 1 areas, even though the
emissions from the sources would cause or contribute to SO2 concentrations
which exceed certain maximum allowable increases for the class I areas.
Therefore, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, acting
as the Federal Land Manager, granted the certifications on September 15, 1982.
The National Park Service analysis of the impact of the proposed sources was
thorough and comprehensive, and we recommend that BLM follow a similar method-
ology in all parts of its air quality analysis for the Fort Union EIS. The
EIS should recognize that no future major facilities will be able to locate in
the vicinity of Theodore r.oosevelt National Park as long as increment violations
persist, absent a variance from the Governor or the President, if the Feaeral
Land Manager determines that the facility would adversely impact the park. In
this regard, conclusions reached in the September 15, 1982 certification should
not be extrapolated to any future permit applications in the vicinity of Theodore
Roosevelt National Park. Each new applicant mjst demonstrate to the Federal
Land Manager's satisfaction that the proposed source will not cause or contribute
to an adverse impact on the resources of Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
We recommend that the Bureau of Land Management carefully review, and if neces-
sary revise, its analysis of potential impacts on Theodore Roosevelt National
Park. For example, we suggest the review examine estimated concentrations
and potential effects that development of leases could have on vegetation and
2951
296
297
298
299
300
wildlife in the park. We suggest the review analyze the cumulative impacts on
the park from existing sources, plus the sources analyzed by the NPS in its
technical analysis. A cumulative impact analysis includes direct and secondary
emissions associated with development of proposed coal tracts and associated
facilities.
Other 1
> be addressed are identified below.
While we recognize the uncertainties involved in predicting the development
that will ultimately result from leasing decisions, we suggest that modeling
be performed for worst-case scenarios for both the North and South Units of
Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and predicted impacts be stated for both unil
Mine development and/or associated industrial facilities at the Zenith and
North/South Wibaux-Beech tracts, because of their location, are most likely
to cause air quality impacts on the South and Elkhorn Ranch Units of Theodore
Roosevelt National Park. Therefore, we suggest that these tracts be analyzed
assuming worst-case meteorological conditions for the South Unit, as was done
for the North Unit of the park. Based on the Service's experience, using the
same model applied to Theodore Roosevelt National Part in the recent FLM
certification, we estimate that the additional modeling runs and analyses
could be performed for less than $20,000, and completed in approximately a
two week period.
a result of regional haze concerns i
only two three-day time periods; (2!
geographic extent, frequency, and
ind (3) it used the terms "adverse*
ly, and apparently without considera-
sibility reduction
(1) it was based
it failed to Include an analysis of 1
duration of the estimated degradatioi
and "baseline" ambiguously, i noons ist
tion of the definitions found in the legislation and applicable reguL
(see, for example. Tables 3-6 and 3-7). Contrary to the implication of the
DEIS, visual impact at the threshold of human perception is not necessarily
adverse.
We share several of the concerns raised by the North Dakota State Health
Department on September 27, 1982 particularly those related to the uncer-
tainties in the emission inventory (Appendix F), the differences between
the two regional scale models used, and the acid deposition data base.
Tne discussion of integral vistas in both the DEIS and the air quality
technical report should be revised. First, the term "integral vista" is
defined by EPA and should be revised in the DEIS to read: "the view per-
ceived from within the mandatory class I federal area of a specific landmark
or panorama located outside the boundary of the mandatory class I area".
See 40 CFR $51.301(n)(198D... The criteria for identification of integral
vistas includes, but is not limited to, a determination of "whether the
integral vistas are important to the visitor's visual experience associated
with a mandatory class I area". 16. 551.304(a). Second, the EIS should note
that the regulations identifying integral vistas have not been promulgated.
As a "major rule" under Executive Order No. 12291, these regulations are
currently undergoing a Regulatory Dnpact Analysis. Third, both the EIS and
the technical reports should include a statement explaining that once a
Federal Land Manager has identified integral vistas, the State is responsible
2-68
300
301
302
' quality planning
303
304
for incorporating the integral vistas into the State
process (specifically the State Implementation Plan).
State is responsible for making final determinations regarding the degree
of protection, if any, afforded to integral vistas in the permitting and
land use planning processes, subject only to the general requirement that
the State make 'reasonable progress" toward the national visibility goal
_ specified in Section 169A of the Clean Air Act.
The DEIS does not contain a complete inventory of vegetation and wildife
resources for the Fort Union region, nor does it identify the air pollution
threshold sensitivity levels of the resources. Where possible, we suggest
the analysis relate predicted air quality concentrations to effects en
_ sensitive species.
Members of the Air Quality Division met with your staff and BLM's air quality
contractor for the EIS in Denver on October 14, 1962 to go over specif i<
on the draft EIS and the air quality technical reports. Additional technical
comments may be submitted to you as a result of that meeting. At your request,
the National Park Service is prepared to provide air quality technical assistance
to your staff, and to work with your staff in reviewing and making any necessary
revisions to the Port Union EIS and technical support documents.
Water Quality
Two segments of the Missouri River, the first from Square Butte Creek to
the Oliver/Mercer County line, and the second from the Knife River to the
Garrison Dam, have been included in the final list of the Nationwide Rivers
Inventory. Rivers which have been included on this list have been selected
after consideration of the degree to which the river is free-flowing, the
degree to which the river and corridor are undeveloped, and the outstanding
natural and cultural characteristics of the river and its immediate environ-
ment. While it appears that the segment from the 01 iver /Mercer County line
to the Knife River was excluded due to mining activities already taxing
place, we would encourage every possible effort be taken to limit adverse
downstream impacts to the Square Butte Creek to ol iver /Mercer County line
segment.
Recreational Facilities
We are concerned about projected demand for additional local recreational
facilities, and impacts to existing facilities which will result from large-
scale development of leases in the project area. The draft document does not
appear to address the issue of mitigation of impacts, nor does it discuss any
alternatives for providing additional facilities to meet the demand illustrated
in Appendix J. There is ample precedent for project sponsors to provide recrea-
tional facilities and other assistance to communities in impacted areas. The
final environmental impact statement should discuss alternatives for mitigation
measures for impacts to local and State recreational facilities, including
potential for provision of additional facilities by the project sponsors.
Historic Preservation
304
EIS, "mining at the Warner-Dunn Center Tracts will jeopardize important and
irreplacable cultural information". Portions of the quarries have been included
on, and other portions are eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of
Historic Places.
The quarries served as an important raw materials source for the prehistoric
and historic peoples inhabiting the villages new preserved in Knife River
Indian Villages NHS. The existence of these resources was doubtlessly one
reason for the establishment of the settlements in the places where they exist.
Preservation of the quarry sites is important for future research into the
general.
prehistory of the Hidatsa, in particular, and the Northern Plaii
preservation is also important to visitor understanding of
Villages NHS.
sory Committee on Hi
Preservati
described
He cultural
BLM and the
n Officers
n the Draft
ical importance of the Knifi
project sponsors should consult with the Ad'
vation and the Montana and North Dakota State H
to evaluate potential impacts on cultural
Environmental Impact Statement.
We appreciate the opportunity to comrcent on this report, and look forward to
working with you on the EIS and air quality technical report. If you have any
questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please contact Mary Ann Grasser
of the Air Quality Division at PTS 234-6419.
i/i h
V
lUd
^v*r~']
UNI TED fiJAT^SietOWttONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BU«.0FIM:0H»»*cBW8<.nviii
Ref: 810
G3ZH0V 23 "W *"**"-
. ii".
Mr. Lloyd Emmons
Acting Project Manager
Fort Union Project
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 30157
Billings. Montana 59107
We have completed our review of your Agency's draft envi
statement on the proposed leasing on the Fort Union Coal Regi
i will not reach your office by the October 8 deadline stated
EIS beca
lental impact
■" - -- ■ w"i j^ui vi ■ n.c vj mi ■■''-' u^i o ueoji me ii'iu^j in me
EIS because we only recently received the "Air Quality Information
Supplement." Because of EPA's concern and role in air qual Ity management, we
did not believe we were able to adequately review the EIS until this
supplement was available.
He found the draft EIS to be ,
environmental impacts that would n
and development of power generatioi
straight-forward discussion of the
ult from proposed leasing of Federal
and conversion facilities.
The environmental 1i
subs t ant i al . The major
of soils, and wildlife.
substantial changes
pacts from the proposed co.
ies relate to air quality,
iven with required ntitigat'
npacts on these media
I leasing will be
iroundwater, reel*
in there will be
quality will be
degraded. Hells will be lost In and around mining areas. Hildlife habitat
will be destroyed and reclamation of woody draws uncertain. Soils will be
severely impacted with successful reclamation of agricultural soils remaining
a question mark. The EIS points all this out.
It would appear that the major restraint on development and use of the
coal would be the PSD Class I air quality limitations. According to the Air
Quality Supplement the increments for TSP and SO2 have already, or are about
to be consumed. Additional gasification or power generation facilities in
this area may not be constructed unless alternatives such as emissions,
offsets or variances were obtained.
In summary, we believe the EIS points out the major environmental impacts
that would result from leasing of the coal and also admits there are
substantial "unknowns" related to some factors. According to EPA's system for
rating draft impact statements this EIS Is rated EU-2 {environmentally
unsatisfactory - insufficient information). Based on the coal mines and
facilities modeled In the EIS, we find the air quality impacts of the
development described to be unsatisfactory. Under all alternatives there are
one or more mines which cause exceedances of the ambient total suspended
particulate {TSP) standard as well as the PSD Class II TSP increments.
Further, the composite impact of the facilities under each alternative show
exceedances of the 24-hour sulphur dioxide increment for one or more Class I
areas. Unless adequate reduction in emissions offsets or waivers are
obtained, air quality permits for the individual mines (with TSP problems) and
thosi
faciliti.
ilch t
These detei
process individual permi
reservations about the 1
development, in particul
■ Cla
I
ureedcii
uld -
>ns will be made by North Dakota and Montai
for the mines and facilities. We also ha-
: of knowledge of some of the Impacts of tl
as related to air quality and reclamation
be
, they
Several specific comments are found in the attachment. If you havi
questions please contact Mr. Gene Taylor in our Montana Office in Helei
FTS 585-5486.
/^-5t<
f Re.
JdZ t/J^
al Administrator
2-69
305
306!
307;
308
309 =
310
31 1[
312
Page S-2: Last paraqraph , organic compounds should be mentioned.
Paqe S-8: First column, first paraqraph. "residual home heating oil?"
Paqe S-9: Figure 2-5, the arrow opposite "nonattairment areas" should be
reversed to point upward and the one ooposite "attainment areas" should
point downward.
Column 2. paragraph 5, "sufficiently major" - could this be elaborated
upon so as to make it more clear?
Page S-11: Column 1, paragraph 1 - should discuss how emissions estimates
were deri ved.
- were maximum emission rates used in all
;xercises?
Column ;
isistent
'age S-39: Column 2 - "Secondary Impacts" section
rom secondary stationary sources? There would als<
inpaved roads, road sanding, etc.
COMMENTS OF
THE DAKOTA RESOURCE COUNCIL
FORT UNION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
what about impacts
Dakota Resource Council
BISMARCK NORTH DAKOTA Si
Mr. Lloyd Emmons
Acting Project Manager
Fort Union Project
Bureau of Land Management
Billings, MT
Dear Mr. Trnmons
October 18, 1982
in geno
al, we support the direction of the findings of the Draft
Environments
Impact Statement, as summarized on page il of the Statement,
The findings
point to the fact that severe Impacts to water, agriculture.
and community services can be expected from !
over the 203
3 million tons needed for production maintenance.
Hovevei
we find the DEIS Inadequate In th.it lr omit! ■ . i deration of
■^orae lmpac Is
especially rhose which occur away from tin m ;
site. Also,
ii fills CO discuss Important air quality impacts in anything
but the most
of community
impacts, nor does it give a full account of gr IwaEi i damage
At best, the DEIS gives only a partial
which will occur from new Federal coal leasing, and u in attempt
to minimize and gloss over the decidedly adverse affect thai coal d<
will have on the Fort Union Region. Our specific comments follow.
1) The need for Federal coal leasing above 201.2 million tons has not
been established which would Justify the subsl mtlal •■■ peeCed.
Currently, there exists an eight megawatt excess clecCl
in the region, a soft coal market, and a weakening industry interest in syn-
thetic fuels.
mllkely that
elopm.
f Che
313
314
Because of these conditions it
s will take place in the forseeable future. But. far from making u:
acent about leasing and possible development, the situation only (u:
uspicions that coal leasing at this time will cesull in speculation
ubllc's expense. If the coal is not needed now. It should not be li
rationale for leasing in
odds with the 1981 Offici
of 203.2 i
Technology A^
liability of Federal Coal
Ive m.-inner. The report concluded that adequate
liable for mining that would last at least fift.
2) The findings of the Air Quality Suppl
believe, show that Federal coal teasing is unw
because development of the tracts would vlolat
Suspended Particulates, as set by Congress in the C
ndardi for SO- and 10! al
314
315
316
317
318
the
i Lass 1 PSD incr.
nenl Is ci
Any mc
,,.
■ .
. ,
...,,
. , ■ | ■
ither 1) .
cisc In ■
..i
i)
., .,. t cha
delibc
i.,i lengc
.,1
. . .
und
whereby agent ■ ■■
■-■i • i, i ..,,-.■, .
mal .i
1 '
The Hortl
ol He i
th,
[n
i to
ronmenta]
Protect
■ ;i;i . .,.
n s
udy of Po
Lul
on "off-set
study may
>li
■ obtain
i
n
ution level
and
thereby c
.: ■ 1
om for mon
■.■I sni .
r, ii..
■
pol
cy change
it
,T cha
any
considers
ion for
Forth. -
is In order
3) We find It
■ ible that
the ser
..,,.
ls
i
tox
hydroi ii b
rad
, trace i
■
a< i
tlon w<
re given only 11F
service
In
th
s doeur
cnt
The manne
negligence on the pari ol Che BLM. We feat chat ch« BLM Is, In effect,
jl tempt Ing to minimize recognition of thi tl devolopmt
by noi allot icing the time and effort to study them. As interested
we are aware of the hazards Ol rynfuel coils Lons, ic Id rain, ind I
I1H to hove ; ■ Lnl n ifltlon, pursue the issues with dlllgenci
and we demand a better assessment of these dan eri
4)
In
onlu
ICt
on u
ith point 1
(above) .
It appears
chat whenev
l
ll1.ldl'<lll.-|
scar
h
tme
and f
imis we
re .ii Lo<
atcd
Co nal
! a proper a
minimum
mpa
■
is .■.
This i
nt 1
i the a
. ..
ra.it ion.
i:r Iul
er.
■""'
.t i
"
Inpa
'
The
fac
is.
lama
, .
. an pi
oven in
„m,
,, Ld i
,-.,■. ■ .i, i. ii
the
Port Unt
n Region
n North Dakota,
from bond, n
f wl
i, .
OOd
Eh. <
est ot
cropping
yea
after
year . Sc lent lfl<
n thi
ML: 1
slve l
. dace. tad
DEIS ass
men
imi.
Larat
: | ■,
potent 1
il when
.tl.
i,i Lng
impacts on
hai
the
aw
■
■ ■,!
be rei i
conditio
th
n 1 1
W.l
before m
■
We also
, thai
irate ices nr
not
always equ.nl
le
ntei
t Of
. Unt I]
and expe
tence
illustra
es othpr
tflse. an
mptlon
of lOO'.
... 1
, .. [on
i ... i ii.i. i . i ■
ble.
With t. rater, the report is misleading. It i
!•■! '■■■■ i .1' . ."I i' !■.•■■ 104, i iii i ■■ '.. leg i ili i ton is not a m;
Issue becauiie Chi Lmpoi I "wl is llkelj (be I Imlted) to no more thi
couple of miles distance from a mine." This flndlti
th.it . "It i^ imporis ible co predict accui itelj how fai iwaj Fron
degraded water will move...." Again, the Lack of research lends
iminn Lmpsi t . i ven LI the "■ ouple ol miles" Ls ■
t 60-81
lgnif 1.
i I,-
leasing?
i
be .
A third area where Lack ol effori Leads to Lacl ol reeog m
Imp icta i ■ Ln off-sltc agricultural tmpai I a Wo will |ust rclternti thai
... and polluted water extend beyon.l ri Iir .it*. These
2-70
HORTHERN PLAIMS RESOURCE COUMCIL
319
320
oi
fund |
fo
To ■
fn
Industry has been negotiated. How then can Beach show a surplus of revenue
within three years of construction start-up — a time when demands on services
will be the greatest? (graph, page A-18) The gross inaccuracies In these for-
casts should be corrected. The rosy predictions of long term fiscal surpluses
for North Dakota communities do not find support in the current realities of
Finally, we are especially displeased with this document In light
e and effort we have expended during previous stages of BUI
g for energy development in this area. We have been asking for thn
hat off-site agricultural Impacts be examined, that more attention
to reclamation of land, that alternative sources for energy be
d, and chat alternative uses of public lands be considered. Ue
otested the status of the Bedwater Management Frameuord Plan as a
g document (to the State Director, May 6, 1980). At this late stag'
still waiting for answers to our legitimate concerns.
,:/«,,,
Duane Sebastian
Chairman, Dakota Resource Council
Main Office
419Staplrti.n HulMlnR
Billing*, MT 59101
(406) 348-1 1S4
Field Office
Box 858
Helena. MT 59624
(406) 44;J-4965
Lloyd Emmons
Project Manager
Fort Union Project
Bureau of Land Management
222 N. 32nd Street
P.O. Box 30517
Billings, MT 59107
Enclosed please find
Resource Council (NPRC) on
Draft Environmental Impact
NPRC appreciates the opportunity
Environmental Impact Statement. If yo
about these comments, please feel free
October 19 , 1982
ents of the Northern Pla
eau of Land Management's
nt. Fort Union Coal Regi
Margaret Nelson
NPRC Staff
Glendive Office
\u
fa ««"*
,1 (O'V'1
Comments of the
NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL
McCONE AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION 0RGANI2ATI0N
and the
DAWSON RESOURCE COUNCIL
On the
Bureau of Land Management's
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Fort Union Coal Region
October 19, 1982
321
322
The Northern Plains Resource Council (NPRCJ and two
of its affiliates, the McCone Agricultural Protective
Organization IMAPO) and the Dawson Resource Council (DRC)
are jointly submitting these written comments on the Draft
Fort Union Environmental Impact Statement. These comments
supplement the oral testimony give by affiliate members
at the September 29 Fort Union Lease Sale Hearing in Clendi
GENERAL COMMENTS:
According to the Introduction, "The purpose of this
analysis is to look at the consequences of leasing and
development of federal reserves in compliance with the
federal coal management regulations and NEPA-" (Fort
Union Coal Region EIS, p. 2.) After reviewing chis draft
EIS, NPRC has concluded that because the draft contains
uffi
pli
stated purpos
n I ■:■
doe
This EIS is most
ncorporate the fo
management progr
tely crucial
oal leasing l
do t
riously flawed because it fail
major principles of the federa
Thus, information which is al
rmining the impacts and conseq1
Goal number 1
Abstract of the F
oal Management Pn
nd effective enforcement of en
hat federal coal is committed
n an environmentally acceptabl
es and land .
the Federal Coal Management Program
1 Environmental Statement Federal
am, p. 3-2) is "Employ land use planning
Suction and produced
;r which is responsible
affected by development
The EIS does
EIS
help to ensure that development
sccur in an environmentally acceptable manner. The
s riddled with unknowns, and cannot be used as a
basis for informed decision making. In discussing ma^or
environmental issues - air quality, water quality, agri-
culture, reclamation - the BLM draws vague conclusions
based on admittedly incomplete data. Information contained
in the social and economic sections is equally vague.
Terms such as "presently not available", "still unclear",
"not well documented", "impossible to accurately predict",
are meaningless when trying to determine and understand
specific impacts. NPRC would appreciate the use of objectiv
factual information as opposed to the documentation of
The Coal Program
common lties and land o
The BLM absolutely fai
While the EIS includes
eglects to discuss
by f
outsid.
supposed to insure that development
ich is "responsible to local
rs affected by development."
in addressing this principle-
pacts to "all affected landowners".
the
ssess impacts to farm/ranch oper
ing tracts (where landowners rec
Throughout the planning process
2-71
322
323
324
ted
an a no
vs
S 0
off-
•■ -i
ly
prom
tc
analy
.hi;
itana o
re c
the
last
c c
lents
on
the
Redwa
members have continually requcs
site impacts, and ELM has repea
those impacts. NPRC members ha
BLM planning efforts in eastern
10 years. In response to publi
MFP, State Oirector Michael Penfold pledged co "insure
that these issues are adequately addressed in the Fort
Union Regional Coal EIS" . {Analysis of Oral and Written
Comments, Redwater Management Framework Plan, March, 1980,
p. 7.) At the same time, BLM pledged to address issues
such as the "social-economic impacts of degraded air and
water quality" in the regional EIS (See p. 4 and responses
to comments, Redwater HFP Public Comment Analysis.) NPRC
members worked with BLM in an attempt to find a way to
address the economic implications of off-site impacts.
(For documentation of just a few of these efforts, see
the testimony of Helen Waller at the Glendive Hearing
on the DEIS on September 29, 19B2, and the correspondence
attached.) Despite these efforts many of the most important
questions about the impacts to agriculture are not addressed
in the EIS.
The second goal of the Coal Program is to "Assure
that sufficient quantities are leased to meet energy needs."
(Abstract p. 3-2.) Secretary Watt's goal, to lease 800
mm - 1.2 billion tons, goes way beyond meeting energy
needs. This leasing level appears to be an over-zealous
attempt to reduce the federal deficit. There is absolutely
no need to lease this coal. Currently, over 16 billion
tons of federally leased coal reserves are not being developed,
mostly due to lack of demand. Major energy development
projects - WPPSS, Exxon's Colony Oil Shale Project, WyCoal
Gas in Wyoming - are floundering or cancelled. Competition
has been absent from recent coal lease and oil lease sales.
In the Fort Union lease sale, industries have withdrawn
their expressions of interest. Generally, demand for
electricity has decreased and is expected to fall more
as prices increase. More natural gas reserves exist than
previously thought and these reserves contain more gas
than ever anticipated. Alte
being developed.
t-.jy
that
federa
L coal
is pr
ed in an e
nicall
/ efficie
mann
2r with
a far
econo
mics
1 return t<
) the U.S.
for all
coal
produced. "
(Abstr
act
p. 3-2.)
As
*e hav
e already
jd,no n
:ed fc
i .2 a =
Overlea
sing will
draw
only m
iniTun
bids
tor
tne coal.
The
publi
c will
not
receive
a fai
r retu
rn .
The proposed
,aie w
ill not
bene
, but
rfl |
rather feathe
- the
peculat
3rs .
In the
rec
ent Powder
Fiv
>r anc
sale
s, most
tract
s were
lee
sed in the
aba
;nce o
f compc-ti
with
some t
-acts
receiv
inq
no bids at
a! ]
In
light of
thes
£ recen
- pub]
ic giv
ays and the fa
-t tha
t several
indu
stries
lave w
ithdra
--n
■
t he
Fort
Union tra
how
=an BLM
DOS SI
bly expect
a Eau return
on th
is propos
325
326
The fourth goal of the Coal Program is to "Emphasize
consultation and cooperation with state governments in
the planning, leasing, and development of federal coal."
This goal was clearly undermined during the process of
setting the leasing target for the Ft. Union sale. The
Secretary of the Interior blantqntly ignored the Regional
Coal Team's (RCT's) unanimous recommendation to lease
400-800 million tons of coal by nearly doubling the target.
The Secretary has also adopted new rules against the wishes
of the western states. Secretary Watt has made it abundantly
clear that the federal coal leasing decisions will be
made on the banks of the Potomac; that the public's solicited
opinions and the RCT's consultations are insignificant
BLM has not provided the public with an opportunity
to comment on the final application of the unsuitability
criteria on tracts that will be offered for lease. Such
an opportunity is required by 3461 . 3-1 ib) II) of the Federal
Coal Management Regulations,
NPRC resei
ients up urn
idered and
MB DUALITY
ves its right under NEPA to submit further
ll November 8, and to have those comments
responded to in the Final EIS, as requested
f October 1, 1982.
Thi
sly
complete because it
the adverse impact
on shows that synfu
327
328
fails to analyze collected da
of air pollution. BLM docume
development will result in ac
genie organic compounds, toxic metals, radioactive element
all of which will contaminate both our precious air and
water resources. In spite of this documentation, BLM
concludes "current information does not enable prediction
effects of these pollutants." (Air Quality Information
Supplmental to the Fort Union Coal Region DEIS, pr S-44 . )
:'\:ch conclusions are inexcusable, irresponsible and in
violation of both NEPA regulations and the Federal Coal
Management Program.
Acid Precipitation
While the EIS affi
lis
ind
and damage to many aspact
plemontal, p. S-35.) , it
will specifically affect
other impacted regions .
; that "acidic precipitatio
; of the biosphere" (DEIS S
rails to tell us how acid r
ihe Fort Union Region and/o
328
EIS states that sand}
Is would be
particularly
sensitive to increased aci
di tj
(DEIS S
jpplemental ,
p. S-36.) What does this
neat
? Will the
soils become
acidic? Will soil fail tc
De
agricultura
ly productive
after x amount of years?
The
EIS downplays thi
of acid rain in the immedi
it e
' y of
the Fort Unior
Region claiming that becai
se '
the soils tend to be alko
they will possess a "grea'
er c
apacity to
neutralize acit
IDEIS Supplemental, p. S-36.)
The soils will only be
able to tolerate so much.
whi
n is "great
;r capacity" e
What is the saturation po
nt?
When will
irreparable damage to the
soil
s?
According to the EIS
acid rain will
vo ge t a
effects are not
"eat
ily quantif
table." iDtlS
Supplemental, p. S-7.) lit
.ice ,
"there is
to clear conse
as to the potential impac
O!
acid precip
itation to cro
(DEIS Supplemental, p. S-8.)
not acceptable. What data is
BLM states sulfur dioxide is
crop yield." (DEIS Supplemcn
of loss? Will effects of sul
loss than effects of sulfur d
available? In the appendix,
know*< to cause a loss of
al, p. S-45.) What percentage
uric acid cause a greater
oxide?
The EIS states
ild up over a per
S-36. ) It conti
"Acidi
tions produced
and nitrogen oxides emissions
me." (DEIS Supplemental,
ing "In the modeling study,
the conversion was linear over time for a period Lasting
up to 48 hours of pollutant release and dispersion. lol-
lutant residence times in the Fort Union Coal region trcbably
range up to four days. Consequently, the design of trc
modeling program could not determine maximum possible
sulfate concentration levels from which acid deposition
rates can be inferred." (DEIS Supplemental, p. s-36.)
Why didn't BLM base the modeling study on four days instead
of 48 hours? If the modeling study had been adequate,
aid
lev
hav
bee
The EIS assumes that "there is little
over direct health effects from acid depo<
Supplemental, p. S-7.) Isn't it possible
and more gasification and liquefaction pl<
SO, and NO. that increased quantities and
centrations of sulfuric and nitric acid cc
affect human health?
The EIS
s the possibly
contamination of edible fish w
tion of drinking water by heavy
tal, p. S-7.), but adds that'ev
these concerns apparently is i
(DEIS Supplemental, p. S-7.) NPRC is co
quality. Is there any ongoing research
ndi
effect
cause for cone
tion." (DEIS
hat with more
ts producing
ncreased con-
Id directly
ect health
mercury and
tals" (DEIS
328
The EIS
to significan
Coal Region. "
329
330
331
udy does not pi
rain in the Fo:
. S-36.) Are you
Mm
tates "the modeling si
production of acidic
(DEIS Supplemental, j
interring no "significant" production, no "significant
impact? Would you define "significant"? More importai
would you indicate if acid rain produced in this regioi
will adversely impact this or any other region and doo
what the impact would be? Facts are useful; vague gem
Trace Pollutants
Organic Compounds
Because not all organic compounds have been identified,
several known compounds are carcinogenic or have been
linked to other health problems, and because ambient levels
have not been identified, the BLM suggests these compounds
should be "more critically evaluated." (DEIS Supplemental,
p. S-37.) NPRC agrees with and appreciates BLM's suggestion.
Will BLM and other government or private agencies be conducting
further studies? What is the status of the EPA study
on organic compounds? When will this information be completed
and ready for circulation? Will there be another DEIS
on air quality before coal is leased, so the public can
evaluate the impacts as stipulated by NEPA? Isn't putting
qZC the evaluation of organic compounds until specific
coal conversion projects are proposed, passing the buck
and violating the Council on Envi ronmentul Quality'3 regulation
for implementing NEPAi
Metals and other Particulate
Lla
le organic compound discussion
that many particulates are toxic and that mo
necessary to determine how trace metals wil
environment. The EIS is supposed to analyz
suggest that data be analyzed.
loactive Elements
Radioactive elem
but since they are pr
BLM assures us that "
alth hazard"
exl i
sly
"radioactive impacts of energy develop-
ment in that area would be very low," (DEIS Supplemental,
pp. S-38, S-39.) In drawing this conclusion, BLM relied
upon the West-Central North Dakota Regional Environmental
Impact Study on Energy Development (1978). The study
only encompassed a one-year period. Radioactive elements
would be emitted during the entire life of a plant. Since
[ i.j.
BLM Jr
for increased
during the life of the facility,
elusion of "very low impact" witnou
plemental, p. S-38.)
2-72
332
333
Effect
Wat
Quality
BLH states that "air pollutants
water quality", but that information
affects is "presently not available."
p. S-4.) In spite of the lack of inf
that "indirect effects of the project
resulting from air pollution will lik
IDEIS Supplemcncal, p. S-41.) This s
with data collected by the North Dako
licalth which found "the buffet inu cap
will eventually be consumed and ell lo
to the point that would indicate seri
Supplemental, p. S-36.) Why does the
data? This is unacceptable-
indi
rectly affect
ng these
DEIS
Supplemental,
ation
, BLM conclude
wate
i quality
be i
nsigmf icant. "
■
Depac
tment of
ty [C
E water]
Modeli
Results
and Fote
a I Adv
In the assessment of ambient pollutant conce
the standards for ambient 24-hour average TSP con
in both Montana and North Dakota, as well as the
secondary standards, are exceeded in all the alte
In addition, the North Dakota and federal seconda
increment is almost consumed.
In the assessm
some of the PSD Cla
and particulate inc
of the alternative
on future Industrie
North Dakota increm
Dt
end
.i! t
remental pollutant
ards for both sulfur dioxidt
e exceeded in some or all
onstraints might this put
to locate near where the
rly consumed? How can BLM
of fede
al and
ill
laws
suit
This
ola
EIS.
During the initial reading of t
mental, NPRC was impressed with BLM-
evaluate only the worst case situations. Examining worst
case scenarios would limit the possibility of "surprises-
later. While these questions should be addressed, NPRC
is most concerned with the fact that worst case scenarios
were not actually addressed. The modeling studies represent
the worst case impacts for the Theodore Roosevelt National
Park (TRNP) and only TRNP. Because each alternative cor.sift
of different facilities in different locations, the emission
and emission dispersion will differ. Thus, there could
be worse air quality impacts than BLM calculates.
upon studying the limitations of the Modeling Studies,
we wondered if the many constraints of this study precluded
the BLM from arriving at any substantive or justifiable
333
334
For example, the DEIS states that:
"Both the MESOPUFF and CDMQU models have been
used in various air quality modeling studies involv
coal resources development. However, they have not
been thoroughly validated for such assessments."
(DEIS Supplemental, p. S-15.)
uitablc for
ons are sparse
ental, p.
"The quality and quality of data
use to establish background concentrat
spotty, and incomplete." (DEIS Supple
S-15. )
"Air pollution characteristics arc
mined by meteorological conditions . . .
logical scenario that is worst for one g
area may or may not be worst for another
(DEIS Supplemental, pp. S-15, S-16.)
"The 1964 meteorological data, while the best
are none too good for air quality modeling purposes
IDEIS Supplemental, p. s-16.)
"This sparcity of me
accuracy and reliability
modeling." (DEIS Supplem
"The model
as to the numbe
well as the tim.
(DEIS Supplemental
eorological data limits the
f results obtainable by
ntal, p. S-16.)
nd length of
nd cost cons
S-16.)
"The mathematical models employed in the study
have their own limitations." (DEIS Supplemental,
p. S-16.)
How do each of these constraints affec
percentage of error can we expect due
constraints? How would this study hav
had time and money not been factors?
The Fort Union DEIS fails to adequately assess impacts
to water quality and water availability.
The EIS acknowledges that nuar open mine pits, groundw
from surrounding areas will be disrupted, but states that
disruption will be limited to "about a mile." (DEIS,
p. 103.) "About a mile" is vague and makes it difficult
to assess off-site impacts. Furthermore, the EIS States
that "water levels in the spoil and the undisturbed sur-
rounding area will return to approximate premining condi-
tions." (DEIS, p. 103.) Water veins often lie within
the coal seams. When aquifers are destroyed, water veins
which have been established for thousands of years, are
destroyed. How can BLM be certain that the water levels
will return to "premining" conditions? What is the basis
for this statement.' What studies or real-life examples
support it?
The EIS states "mining may cause changes in the chemical
quality of the local groundwater" (DEIS, p. 103.) and
says "it is impossible to predict accurately how far away
from a mined area degraded water will move." (DEIS, p.
104.) Degraded water poses an adverse, and potentially
devastating effect on livestock, crops, farms and ranches.
BLM should more closely assess the effects of water degradation
334
on productivity and the local economy.
k^ t^ «
What is the "sufficient impermeable material" which
will prevent degradation of the lower aquifers? (DEIS,
p. 104. J Is it possible that lower aquifers will not
be protected?
Gasification plants will produce hazardous materials.
The EIS mentions these wastes will either be burned or
buried. What will be the effect on surface and ground-
water quality in the event the burial sites are not fool-
proof? Synfuels' developers have publicly advocated dis-
posal of wastes in mine pits, which could result in serious
water contamination. What consequences do leaching problems
pose to human health? What means are available to prevent
leaching? What volume of hazardous wastes will be produced?
Where will the organic wastes be marketed?
AGRICULTURE
The EIS assumes that "Post mininq use would be the
same as premining use." (DEIS, P. 41.) Where is the
data which leads to this conclusion? No instance exists
in the Great Plains where mined land has been reclaimed
to its former productivity. No reclamation bonds have
been released in Montana. Even if bonds are released
in the near future, the "reclaimed" land has not yet stood
the test of time. Efforts that appear successful after
o *■> ^
5-10 years, may well fail 20-40 years later, after a re-
^ TT
presentative exposure to the harsh seasonal fluctuations
*JhJ*J
and unpredictable weather cycles well documented in this
region. In addition, soils in the Montana tracts with
poor reclamation potential range from 17% of the acreage
in the Bloomfield tract to 62% of the acreage in the Burns
Creek tract. Since soils with good reclamation potential
have not been returned to prior usage, how can BLM expect
that soils with poor reclamation potential will even approach
original usage? BLM not only asserts that original usage
will be restored, but that "productivity should even improve."
-8-
335
336
337
338
(DEIS, p. 108.) I
n the face of existing know
ledge a
id
the
lack
of long t«
rm information on
reel am
this
stateme
it is
unfounded
NPRC is
also
concerned
with the
reclamat
ion of
wp
and
rfoody dr
1WS.
In the wildlife section, BL
M state
s
"the
'e i s debate o
n whether
reclamat
on of we
t lands
i .,
poss
ble."
:deis,
p. 123.)
BLM als<
) states
that "r
of woody dra
*s has
not been
achieved
(DEIS
, p. 12
4.
How can BLM
ly conclude that r«
clamatio
n effor
ts
rn the land
In the "Land Disburbance and Production Losses" sec
BLM equates the land taken out for mining with the land
removed from production during summer fallow. How is
this relevant? Mining operations rob the land of its
characteristics and can destroy its water supply. Summe
fallow replenishes the land and renews its productivity.
In the "Economj
BLM figures that the
by approximately li
c Influ
\gr
ultural Operat ions
uld be reduced
of the "affected
0 to 15 years."
ation is not completely
nomic loss of land
Second, BLM also
be compensated finan-
the combined v
Tie. BLM undere
loss in three respects. First, BLM a
techniques will restore premining usa
improved) productivity levels within '
(DEIS, p. 89.) What happens if recla
successful'? Can BLM estimate the ec
permanently removed from production?
assumes that farm/ranch operators can
cially - that money will mitigate dam
it is not feasible to compensate landowners (e.g. for
unforeseen losses in groundwater). It is also important
to point out that in many cases, no amount of money can
mitigate the damage. Lifestyle rewards cannot be measure
in monetary terms. Third, BLM entirely ignores an assess
ment of the off-site economic impacts to agriculture.
Without this assessment, BLM cannot even guess the reduct
of gross farm income. Since the initial planning stages
of this proposed lease sale, NPRC has continually been
analysis would be included. Thi
is crucial in determining the economic impact
the agricultural sector, but to the Fort Umo
a whole. Why has this analysis been omitted?
BLM not only underestimates, but miscalculates the
ilysis compares agricultural income
foregone (on the tract; with royalties or other measure-"
ments of the value of mined coal. In this analysis (and
other BLM analyses) , the present value of potentially
affected future agricultural income is used for comparati
purposes -
red that an off-site
rmatu
only
2-73
338
339
The
an
ilysis
is faulty fo
th*»
best
re of t
-„l
tural
ratior
is the valu
ass
ot
discounted
yearly
able
a farm
in
a spe<
if
lc par.
el o
land a
of that parcel. It is not liqu
be compared on a discounted cash-£l
analysis in the EIS should, thereto
of leasing and development on the v
ment, and not just on foregone inco
r several reasons. Fust,
he worth of land to an agr
e c i the land itself aid
income. Agricultural oper
er's capital is tied up
nd equipment suited to oper
a] .
LJ1J
income basis. The
focus on the effect
e of land and equip-
potcntially increased
rship patterns and divi
production costs on unmined por
due to disruption of logical ow;
of logical farming and ranching units.
Third, the purely economic analysis is not consistent
with the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield
as defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
which is supposed to govern BLM decision-making. Since
the Redwater MFP did not include a multiple-use analysis
of the impacts of leasing on agriculture, it would be
appropriate for BLM to include such an analysis in the
EIS. The economic analysis presented here does not accomp
this purpose.
The proof that
in the result of the
the prediction that
analytical
aulty li
of production at the conclusion of mining.
What farmers or ranchers known to BLM have resum
production en mined land in the Northern Great Plains
The prediction of the economic model does not square
reality. Farmers and ranchers typically sell to mini
companies and leave , if a substantial portion of thoi
operation is affected.
OTHER LAND USES AND VALUES
BLM's traffic analy
impact. BLM f
does not reflect the true
impacts to county and to1
ds, by assuming all employees will travel on main
BLM underestimates the traffic flow by only calculati
employee commuting. They neglect to include traffic
with the mining operation or the increased traffic fr
indirect population influx. The traffic analysis tab
have limited use. IDEIS, p. 131-133. J They do not a
339
340
341
traf
loca
road
dents
tant questions such
ic /tonnage cause t
people expect in c
systems? How will
? what will be the
as what damage will increasec
rder to maintain and improve
local communities levy increa
percent increase of traffic
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
HE
While we see a more
major consideration
mic impact to local
thorough review of economic
ements, the DEIS incorrectly
s and, thus, underestimates t
The economic analys
that synfuel constructic
is a ridiculous assumpti
rates and due diligence
lopment" assumption res
the workforce pcpulatior
is is based on the assumption
n will occur in stages. This
on when one considers interes
stipulations. This "phased d
ults in an underestimation of
Using a gravity moc
have underestimated the
estimated it in others.
population distribution
a model which considers
services, recreation, re
schcols) of cities with]
el to distribute population m
population in some towns and
could have been obtained by u
the attractiveness (i.e. soci
tail outlets, medical facilit
n or near the impacted region
Communities will face "severe public service funding
problems" (DEIS, p. 139.) according to BLM's net fiscal
balance forecasts. Unfortunately, it appears these already
drastic deficits are underestimated. According to the
EIS, the net fiscal balance compares forecasted revenues
(e.g. property taxes, federal revenue sharing grants,
highway funds, etc.) with forecasted expenditures (e.g.
police and fire, public service maintenance and expenditure,
debt service, etc.) to arrive at a yearly balance. It
appears that two of the most expensive county expenditures -
schools and roads - are not included in this fiscal analysis.
Is that the case? If so, what additional fiscal deficits
can local taxpayers expect to face? In light of the fact
that many federal programs have been slashed, when will
communities obtain the monies to expand their services.'
How will they deal with funding lags? Will companies
be required to provide front-end money as a condition
of their leases? NPRC urges that BLM include lease stipulate
requiring agreement in mitigation between lessees and
local governments.
"SOCIAL CONDITIONS
341
342
concern. The DEIS states "wl
irae and other problem behavio:
owth in population in these c<
te of crime in any area may r<
147.) Where is the data to support this conclusion
at energy growth community has maintained a stable r
increase \Jrth the
ies, the overall
table." (DEIS,
The DEIS fails
will happen if
ard? What happe
o address the "bust" possibli
planned Cor facility does no
s if industry pulls out while
N."|. i'l LI-V i 1 \l>i REM. 1 l-( t CC I ■>( IL
m, .,, FixldDinct hwUOIk*
O.-.X'vS Bo.SM'i
Biilxujj MTS'yiDI H.'.n, Glcndiw Ml .'M'.d
|4M») J4.1 4W»5 WOil 365-252'i
July 7, 1981
Mr. Michael Penfold
State Director
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, Montana S9101
Dear Mr. Penfold:
The purpose of this letter is to follow up our discussion
at the Fort Union Regional Coal Team public meeting in Miles
City in May, concerning the assessment of off-site impacts duiing
activity planning. Dave Darby of your staff and John Smillie
of NPRC's staff met briefly on this question last month, per
your request, and agreed that the best course of action was
for NPRC to detail our suggestions in writing.
I also want to briefly discuss the subject of diligent
development regulations.
Let me begin by saying that it is somewhat frustrating to
me that our specific concerns about what off-site impacts should
be considered, and how they should be analyzed, were not yet clear
to you prior to the May meeting in Miles City. Measurement of
off-site impacts in economic terms will be difficult if not impossibl ,
given the time remaining before the Fort Union lease sale.
Had the necessary data and inventory collection, literature
searches, scientific research, and economic analysis been
initiated at the outset of the activity planning process, or
(better) during land use planning — as MAPO and NPRC have been
advocating for at least the past five years--this problem
would not have occurred.
I would, therefore, like to document some of our previous
attempts to raise the issue of economic impacts of leasing
decisions on agricultural operators both off-site and on-site.
Since 1975, we have attempted to participate in and
influence BLM land use planning decisions in the Fort Union
area. One of our most important recommendations has been that
agricultural resources be inventoried throughout the planning
area, early in the process. This would have provided the basis
for on-site and off-site impact analysis.
Our recommendation was rejected, repeatedly. Instead, the
RCT now finds itself in the position of having to scramble
to complete an agricultural resources inventory for just the
tract delineation areas; and it is not clear to us whether
the level of detail of this inventory is adequate. We mide
our recommendation on dozens of occasions, up to and including
our comments on the Redwater MFP, and in our protest o: /our decision
2-74
to CO
MFP de
I
ample
inclosed
■f those
■
f forts
r to Frank Gregg, dated March 26, 1979,
protest of the MFP, for another example
peatedly, in response, that the economic
g on agricultural surf ace--whcther
You may refer to my 1
which was appended to
blm has assured u
impacts of federal leasin
federal or non-federal, o
in activity planning. Ou
you became State Directo
concerns would be address
we would have an influenc
be done.
In testimony on the Redwater MFP, MAPO and other MPRC
made extensive, specific comments on the necessary studie
For example, I said in my testimony:
ng our meeting with you shor
you assured us that all of
in this stage of planning,
on the types of studies that
iy
My deepest concern... is not that my land will be
stripmined. I have here a refusal to consent to
stripmining, which the Surface Mining and Reclamatio
Act allows. This will be delivered to the BLM in du
time. What I am most concerned about is the fact
that if federal coal is recommended for a lease sale
permitting the coal to be stripmined, land will be
turned upside down, synfuels plants and gasit.
plants and power plants will be built, railroads
and transmission lines will cross our property,
water supplies will be diminished or destroyed
and the remainder of our crop and grassland will
be polluted to the point of questionable economic
viability.
BLM's official response indicates that an economic
sessment of the types of impacts I mentioned would be
nducted; "It is beyond the scope of the MFP to assess
1 of the problems adequately at this time. . . fthey]) are
ems to be addressed site specifically as well as on a
I have enclosed (again) a copy of the "later list"
compiled by NPRC detailing the studies promised for the
activity planning phase. I suggest that you refer to the
testimony given on the Redwater MFP, and BLM's responses
to and analysis of that testimony, to get an idea of just
exactly how much work BLM pledged to conduct.
At page four of that analysis of the testimony on
the Redwater MFP, BLM stated:
Social and econonm
tm testimony^ as .
closely related co
Ea
nalysis i
plan el
jlture i
ately be
of degraded
planning env
al
i Empha;
Additionally, you wrote in concurrin
approve the MFP, "I am aware of the i
about agricultural impacts, social-economic consideration
reclaimability and data adequacy and will attempt to insu
that these issues are adequately addressed in the Fort Un
Regional Coal EIS. "
ending
towards the
. At the first
et up the econo:
ed the staff
suggr?
Because of BLM's repeate<
RCT meetings and work group i
types of analyses which we had been requestin
RCT meeting, we were asked to help the staff
analysis of impacts to agriculture. We direc
to the testimony on the Redwater MFP, and the
had then requested. We aljo sent detailed co
the draft of the Economic contract. (Please
attached copy of those comments. You will see that the
are quite specific with regard to the j
off-site impacts to agriculture.)
Since I sent that letter, one full year ago, the project
staff has determined that agricultural impact studies would
not be contracted out, out would be done by the staff themselves
We have received no reply to the letter, so we have had
no indication whether or net our suggestions would be follow.-!.
However, the analysis of economic impacts to agriculture
was discussed at the .7CT meeting in February. By then,
the analysis had been pared down to include only on-site
impacts, and even th
removed from product
At t.ie February meeting, you requested that project sta
discuss their proposed ranch budget model analysis of agric
impacts with the agricultural work group. The staff howeve
convened the Social and Economic Work Group to discuss the
proposal. In any case, I attended that meeting of the work
group, and I reiterated our position that off-site impacts
must be considered in the economic analysis. I was told
that there was not enough data, time, or money to conduct
the analysis we had suggested.
at only
rha
ing
that many of our most important
addressed in the EIS given the
wrote a letter (dated April 13)
at the April meeting. The staf
that
rns could not be aJequ
nd money available. I
e RCT, which was discu
red the RCT that most
mi . Michael e
July 7, 196 1
of the studies on the "later list" would oe conducted, with
the exception of some hydrological information and alluvial
valley floor information.
The hydrological information, however, is probably the
most critical data to the measurement of off-site impacts.
It is vital to determining the impacts of stripmining, and
of the storage of toxic solid wastes. A major component
of off-site impact analysis will, therefore, be missing.
Even more importantly, the staff did not indicate to
the RCT that off-site impact analysis would figure in the
economic analysis of impacts to aqriculture. This is the
critical issue. As I said in my April 13 letter, the model
may be satisfactory, as far as it goes, but the validity of
the model is not the central issue. I wrote:
The greatest problem with the proposed analysis of the
impact of leasing on agricultural operations is
that it completely leaves out off-site impacts. The
economic analysis will therefore be misleading, and
it will understate the impacts to agriculture.
The chronology of our efforts to secure a thorough
analysis of the economic impacts of Federal leasing decisions'
on agricultural operators (both on-site and off-sitel, which
I have briefly outlined above, has been filled with frustration.
I am therefore skeptical as to whether or not the RCT will
be able to conduct the analyses that we think are necessary,
and that have been promised to us over the past two years.
Despite my skepticism, I will list the most important
off-site impacts to agriculture, as you requested. The impcitant
thing is that the economic costs of these impacts be measun
and included in the economic impacts analysis in the SSA's,
PFER'c and in the regional EIS. I will be glad to go into
more detail (if it is requested) as to how the economic impacts
may be measured for any of the off-site impacts which the
project staff plans to evaluate on an economic basis.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY : It is an established fact that strip-
mining results in degradation of the quality of groundwater and
surface water, fluctuations in groundwater quantity, and often
the destruction of aquifers, outside as well as inside the
mining site itself. These impacts are often permanent, not
temporary. Storage of the extremely hazardous and toxic waste
byproducts of coal conversion processes poses an additional
threat to hudrological resources vital to farm and ranch profitabi
Hydrologic data and analysis must be sufficient to determine the
productivity lost or diminished on and around each tract, for
each affected farm or ranch, due to groundwater disruption,
degradation, or destruction.
Mr. Michael Penfold, page five
July 7, 1981
AIR QUALITY: The analysis should project likely crop yield
losses, grass production losses, and livestock weight gain
losses attributable to the various air pollutants (regulated
and unregulated) emitted by synthetic fuels plants and power
plants.
RIGHTS OF WAY: Landowners off-site may be condemned for powerline;
rail spurs, pipelines, and the like. The effect of these rights
of way taken out of production from logical farm and .ranch operate
ns.
the increased operating costs, the diminished land values, as
well as simple acreage losses, should be included m the economic
analysis.
FACTOR COMPETITION: The effect of energy industrialization
on the labor market, the cost of living, the price of land.
and other factors which contribute to generally increased costs
to farmers and ranchers should be analyzed and quantified in
the economic analysis.
I would like to reiterate what I said a year ago in
my letter to Loren Cabe. I recognize that prediction of
(for example) the impact of disrupted aquifers on farm or
ranch profitability is more complicated than predicting the
increased county-wide income from a given population increase
and increased payroll due to construction and operation of
a major facility. However, an economic analysis which
ignores serious costs to agriculture simply because those
costs are difficult to measure with precision will be little
It is regrettable that it has taken so long to clearl ■/
identify the scope of analysis of agricultural impacts which
we believe are necessary. Quite frankly, I do not think
that NPRC or its members bear the responsibility for the
amount of time that has elapsed with this issue unresolved.
given our efforts to resolve this issue as I have outlined
them here.
I would like to turn briefly to the issue of due diligence
regulations. The retention of existing diligence requirements
is absolutely critical to the integrity of the coal leasing
process. Even with the existing requirements, we are concerned
that the coal lease target recommended at the last RCT meetn -,
may invite private speculation with publically owned resources.
Without diligence requirements at least as stringent as pre
regulations, such speculation would be a certainty. Diligent
development requirements, then, are a necessity if the Federal
Coal Management Program is not to be completely undermined.
2-75
Union Regi
erefore greatly encourageu" to learn that the Fort
al Coal Team had decided to condition its coal
recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior
the retention of existing due diligence requirements.
If the Regional Coal Team's letter transmitting its
ion to the Secretary has been sunt, we would apprec
receiving a copy. If it is being dratted, we would very mucn
like to assist in developing the language concerning the
[ainst weakening of diligence requirements.
hank you for the opport ,
[filiates, and other individuals
to participate in the planning
s we have expressed here can
we can be of any further
ving these concerns, please
In closing, I would like
you have provided for NPRC, i
and groups in the Fort Union
process. I hope that the con
be addressed in that process,
assistance in clarifying or r
J£s~jjfa&
Helen Waller
Chairman, Norther
Plains Resource C
ir Whitlock
Gallagher
United States Department of the
Water Resources I
Subject:
We have i
343
344
345
346
ge 20. There Is a slight discrepancy .
the saps of surface ownership and subi
the south-central part of the tract, .
rface Owner
Page S3, table heading. The
Alternative 3 Is given as 62'
stated that Alternative 3 *wt
Page 53, table 1-6. The lo«
of the table appears to indie
Alternative 3 would be 204, Bl
Page 135-143 Econonlc Impact
int of Federal coal to I
illllon tons. However,
result In leasing an ai
new production" (p. 72
later it Is
tlnated 832.3
para. 12).
lgbt figure In the upper one-half
that the total area disturbed under
cres. However, elsewhere in the draft
egetatlon under Alternative 3 appears
foe example, page 67, page 113, tables
Secondary employment effects are not
nt — some justification for excluding
N«Ws R. !
Spates Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D C 20145
Bureau of land Management
Project Leader
Billings, Montana
Chief, Eh\rlronmental Services Staff
Comments concerning Air Quality Information Supplemental to
the Port Union Coal Region Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DES 82/1(7)
! comments on the subject document for your action. These
•e prepared by the Billings Area Director,
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
memorandum
of Trust, Land Operatit
Comments concerning Air Quality Information Supplemental to the
Fort Union Coal Region Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DES 82/47)
From: Billings Area Director
347
348
of fit
toward a Class II air quality
supplement, several Montana India;
Air Quality criteria. In additioi
submitted an application for Clas:
approved, the provisions inherent
■Ore stringent stack emission coni
quality supplement to the Fort Union draft EIS
interprets the base line data to be governed
ation. However, as referenced i
Reservations have established Clas
, the Fort Peck Reservation has
I standards. If the application i
to a Class I situation would rcquin
rols.
If the Federal coal exchange with Meridian Land and Mineral Company is
approved under provisions of alternative 3, and a methanol facility is
developed, adequate measures to provide Class I air quality standards
would have to be incorporated into the design of the plant.
In a related issi
be established oi
Indian Reservation.
Wc feel the wind rose diagram (figure 2-3, page S-3) for Dickinson, North
Dakota may not adequately address the wind conditions on the Fort Peck
Reservation.
For additional information regarding these comments, please contact
David Pennington. 6S7-632S or Patrick Hemmy, 6S7-614S.
Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savinfls Plan
2-76
FEDERAL A10 COORDINATOR OFFICE
September 2. 1982
"LETTER OF CLEARANCE" IN CONFORMANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER I'^gK!
To: US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management \
STATE APPLICATION IDENTIFICATION: ND82080403S2 i
Mr. Michael J. Penfold, State Directo
Bureau of Land Management
P. 0. Box 501S7
Billings, Montana S9107
Dear Mr. Penfold,
ZJZ
This draft E1S
ved in this office on August 4, 1982.
Thank you for submitting your draft environmental impac
ment for review and comment through the North Dakota St
Intergovernmental Clearinghouse.
Please send copies of the final environmental impact statement
and any supplemental impact statements to the North Dakota agen-
cies that have commented on the draft and to this office. The
opportunity to review your draft is appreciated, and if this
office as Clearinghouse can be of further assistance with this
project, please let me know.
Sincerely yours
Mrs. Leonard E. Banks
Coordinator
State Intergovernmental Clearingho
m
DEFT OF INTERIOR
BUR OF LAHO MANAGEMENT
BtflfToWfc jjki\'- 26 FEDERAL AID COORDINATOR OFFICE
RECElVtO BWmarek. North O.hoU 5B50S
"LETTER OF CLEARANCE" IN CONFORMANCE WITH EXECUTIV
To: US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Man
STATE APPLICATION IDENTIFIER: ND6209270428
v'.-mi*yt i _^
Mr. Michael J. Penfold, State Director
Bureau of Land Management
P. 0. Box 501S7
Billings, MT 59107
Dear Mr. Penfold
Thank you for the copy of the Air Quality Information Supplement
to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Fort Union
Coal Region.
wnfrircfr*
Thank you for submi
tal impact statemen
Dakota State Interg
r supplement to the draft environmen
iew and comment through the North
al Clearinghouse.
he appropriate agencies, and no com-
and any supple
cies that have
opportunity to
of the final environmental impact statement
1 impact statements to the North Dakota agen-
ented on the draft and to this office. The
ew your draft is appr
ouse can be of furthe
6. voi-^
ental Clearinghouse
ENVIRON: EVTAL IMPACT ASSF-SSN
■quest foe tlr.virio ; ent»l_ Inpac L Svalwat,
BUR OmANt^JW^ftNT^ ^
Munum Oepartment of Health iV
682 OCT 25 E*IMn*fci<aJ Sciences
i Stale Clea
FROM: Hont.
Offii
Lapiti
Helena, Montana 59620
shc,
una STATE office
.Litres, he* ■.'. «_«.•.,*
nvironreeotal Impact Assessment Title: Aif Quality Information Supplemental to the Fort Union
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (MT82 0804-050- 1
Clearinghouse File Numbe
EIS Agency Sponsi
SPONSOR ADDRESS:
MT82O92O-109-E
U. S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Land Many.
Fort Union Project. Bureau of Land Managcir
CONTACT PERSON:
32nd Street. P. O Bo* 30157
Billinp, MT 59107
Uovd Emmons. Acting Project Manager
COMMENTS DUE BY. Wm
industry & public agencies will b,
The Above Named Statement
in this additional m quality information from interested citizen:
>ted after the October 8. 1982 cutoff date, extending to and
uding the Regional Coal Team meeting on October 19. 1982
X is enclosed for your review and comment
should have been received by your agency fn
-M. Is available at the Clearinghouse Office fo
Please evaluate the assessm.
statewide and local objecti<
nd fullfillment of
elated i
•iced should the
1. The Environmental impact, of the proposed action.
2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be ,
proposal be implemented.
3. Alternatives to the proposed action.
4. The relationship between local short-term uses of t
and maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would
be Involved in the proposed action should it be implenented.
IF YOUR AGENCY HAS COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS, PLEASE SECT)
IKZ COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE AGENCY SPONSOR AND EOKWASD A COPY OF THE C02EEK7S
TO THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
NO COMMENT
Reviewer's Signature
United States Department of the Interior
in ?fpT CF IMrrcmJOFFlCE OF SURFACE MLN1NG
0F UNO aLu^n™ «d £»««»». « _
*N0 hANn^ru-Aeclamaiion and Enfoncmeat
)Z7 tin,, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Project Manager. Port Union Project
Montana State Office, Bureau of Land Management
Chief, Division of En*
Analyale
vlronmental and.Ecnnomlc
349
350
351
352
t
Ue have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Fort Union Coal Region and find that overall it Is an
excellent document. However, we do have some specific comments
which should be considered before the final EIS 1b Issued. Our
nts are as follows:
al
The Surface mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 should
listed in 'Federal Laws Affecting Coal Development and
rgy Conversion", Appendix A (page A-l through A-3).
Hydrology
Affected Environment
Figure 2-6 on pa
be useful (i.e..
Fort Union Forma
eded.
tween the four hydrogeologlc
the Pierre shale and the Fort
not clear (see page 85, and
86). Further clarification would
e the four aquifer zones in the
n?)
mineable coal bed Is below the
em (watertable vs. confined) Is
A discussion of the relationship between
alluvial/till aquifers and bedrock aquifer systems
Is recommended (page 85). The description should
Include a short discussion of the recharge and
discharge areas for both the allul va 1/ t 111 and
bedrock systems. This information le especially
valuable because of the potential alluvial valley
Elo
It
2-77
Environmental Consequenc
353
354
355
The following statement (page 103) may be
misleading: "In many parts of this area, the
mineable lignite lies below the water table and is
often tapped by wells for domestic and stock water
supplies". If the assumption by the reader is
correct that the mineable lignite is generally
confined by the adjacent strata, a statement to the
effect that the "lignite is below the water table
"While the mine pit is open, groundwater from the
surrounding area will seep Into the pit causing a
drawdown of water levels. This impact will be
limited Co the mining tracts and an area within one
mile of the tracts" (page 103). If this analysis is
based on published information, a reference is
required. Otherwise, a justification of the one
mile limit should be provided.
"There is no practical way to restore alluvial
valley floors ..." (page 105). Several mine plans
In the Powder River basin propose to mine alluvial
valley floors <AVP) and to restore the essential
hydrologic funcltions as part of the reclamation
plans. Although no AVF's have been mined and
Fish and Wildlife
356
357
roposed Coal Lease Altneratlves - Special Tract Stipulations
The protective measures (avoidance, buffer zones or
mandatory restoration) in the stipulations should be
described for the Sharp-tailed grouse and critical
antelope range (page 48).
Since approximately 120,000 acres of wildlife
habitat could be impacted by leasing, the BLH ehould
consider requiring additional mitigation measures.
Possible mitigation measures to aid in the
restoration of wildlife habitat could include:
on reclaimed land for
Establishing buffer
until the lessee has
ed with the USFWS
357
5. Requiring a pre-disturbance survey (within o
year) of all prairie dog towns, using USFWS
methods, to avoid impacts on black-footed fe
Affect Envlr
358
threatened and endangered species, descriptions of
the following groups should be Included (pages
90-92).
1) Raptors (many of high federal interest)
(including furbearers and
3) Small mammals (Important as prey base)
4) Passerines (diversity Indicators)
biological
Environmental
359
360
In many cases the post-mining land form and
vegetation diversity will be changed from the
pre-mining condition, often from a rough, shrubby
rangeland to a different form such as grass
dominated pasture. This change will Impact wildlife
through a species composition change and reduced
species diversity. Such impacts should be presented
as permanent losses of wildlife habitat. This
subject is only briefly explored (page 124) and
should be discussed in greater detail.
The impacts to antelope movements created by new
fences pits, stockpiles, and facilities should be
discussed since free access to shelter during winter
storms Is a key factor in pronghorn survival.
i
I 361
~"o Posaible Impacts on raptors resulting from new
electric transmission facilities, with references to
approved designs, to minimize electrocutions, should
be Included.
1 362
~o We recommend a discussion of Impacts to wildlife by
off-road vehicles (snowmobiles during stressful
wintering periods, four wheel drive disturbances
M
riculture
1 363
~o The intermixing of calcareous horizons with other
overburden material (p. 86) is precluded under
reclamation laws of both Montana and North Dakota.
If it will be mitigated, there is no need to
describe it as an Impact. In addition, Impacts and
mitigation should not be Included in the Affected
Environment Chapter.
d
ltural Resources
364
o A site-specific table or chart summarizing the
cultural resources work which has been performed is
suggested.
So
cloeconomic
365
o Under three of the alternatives, development of the
coal tracts would generate a need for detailed
traffic studies prerequisite to highway improvement
planning; there also would be an increase in highway
366
which most of these alternatives assure, public
revenues generally lag behind public costs by two or
three years. The major Issue is whether local
government can handle the projected population
faciltitles and services. The draft EIS states that
"front-end" financing would resolve most of the lag
problems and implies when the full flow of
additional revenue does come on line, It will be
adequate ("Public Revenues and Costa", page 8).
This is not necessarily so, particularly in cases
where the area experiencing most of the direct
366
367
increase in public revenues. Such contradictions
arise in the case of geographic or jurisdictional
aberrations. These situations usually require
special attention.
The charts on page A-19 and 20 of appendix H
persistently indicate negative fiscal balances
lasting into the year 2000 for most of the Hontan
townB impacted by preferred Alternative 3. In ot
words, these fiscal deficits are projected to end
long after any reasonable lag period and regardle
of general benefits of the developments. It appe
these potential fiscal consequences and need for
mitigation should be emphasized more in the
2-78
WENT OF THE AIR FORCE
qQPP
er 19H2
p,.95
Fort Jnicn flraft Environmental Impact Statement (OFIS) MT8AJ8C!-0b0-E
'■ Clearinghouse
Office of Sudoet and Program Planning
Capitol 3uilding, Room ?37
-.elena, <T 59620
merits
subject draft CIS ,
tht-
368
'. ■'-' representatives attended the public meeting held at Reulah, North
. 28 September 198Z and have also reviewed the referenced document.
There is no concern with the coal leasing developments involvino the Montana
tracts, '-,'e do have concern, however, with coal exploration activities which may
in McLean County, specifically in the Garrison and Lake Sukakawea area.
■ particular area contains Air Force missile sites and interconnecting buried
c.l
:>l-
3. hr. Jack E. Moore,
i, has prev
the Qimnos and the D
Department of Uie Intei
I .ration
mend thai vr. Hoore
reached at the foil.
.,. i i
hief o* Missile Cable Affairs at Minot Air Force Case.
usly provided copies of missile fight area maps to both
kin Son offices of the Bureau of Land Management,
or, m expressing this concern. Before any coal
viiies ire considered for the specified area, we recom-
ont acted for further input on this matter. He can be
address :
Department of the Air Fori ■
\i (ahl? Affairs
!l50th Communications Squadron (AFCC)
■hue' Air Force Rase, NO SS70S
Telephone ( '01 > 727-3646
Tnank ycu for the opportunity to review the DEIS. He hope these comment
ill be helpful to you in evaluating the environmental impacts^ the varioi
lternatives discussed In the DEIS, It »<• can be of further a^sfttaVi?e, pli
itate to call us.
incerely
Dfi
/As St
Fed -'.
d
Coordinator
{ ■•'!■
. Bonn
ie Ba
.
. A-95
Coord)
Sta
te Cap
i tol ,
B
smarck
NO
, I ,is*,V i,v
91CSG/0EEVE, Kinot AFB
2150 Com Sq, Minot AFB (Miss
Cable Affairs)
SAC/OEV
2-79
PART III
Responses to Public Comments
INTRODUCTION
This section contains the responses to the public comment. The responses are numbered 1 through 368 to
correspond with the bracketed and numbered comments and questions found in Part II. In order to save time and
space, where the same comment or question surfaces several times, the reader will be referenced back to an earlier
response. In some cases, the reader will be referred to the Modifications and Corrections section which is Part I of this
document.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
RESPONSE 1 . The change has been made. See the
Modifications and Corrections section, Introduction.
RESPONSE 2. The correction has been made. See
the Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter 3,
Other Land Uses.
RESPONSE 3. The change has been made. See the
Modifications and Corrections section, Appendix I.
RESPONSE 4. Flow and quality data for the Red-
water River are presented in Tables 2-6 and 2-7 (pp. 86
and 87) of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS does not state
that this water will pollute the Missouri River. The reason
for concern about the Redwater River is due to the state
standards for water quality, alluvial valley floor status,
and the effects that mining may have on them.
RESPONSE 5. Lignite has almost always been used
on site. The Regional Coal Team decided evaluation of
leasing and development should include an analysis of
impacts associated with typical end-use facilities which
might be developed with new mines, since the mining
of coal provides a lesser portion of the total impacts
associated with development. Although the Regional
Coal Team included these facilities in the Draft EIS,
approval of these facilities is not a part of the action
required in the document. Such facilities would be
subjected to separate analyses, and approval must be
received by the appropriate permitting agencies.
RESPONSE 6. The changes have been made. See
the Modifications and Corrections section, Appendix A.
RESPONSE 7. Some of the activities associated with
the development of mines and facilities could require
approval by the Corps of Engineers on the nationwide
permit or would require an individual permit for the
specific activity.
RESPONSE 8. See response 6 concerning changes
to Appendix A, and the Modifications and Corrections
section, Chapter 3, Water.
RESPONSE 9. The Regional Coal Team assumed
that a coal conversion facility would be located in the
vicinity of each new mine since lignite is almost always
used on site. Based on the assumption that there would
be a mine-mouth facility with each new mine, there is no
need to discuss coal slurry facilities to transport lignite
out of the region. See Draft EIS page 4, second para-
graph, under Use of Lignite Coal.
RESPONSE 10. We agree the vast shorelines of
Lake Sakakawea and Fort Peck Reservoir offer tre-
mendous potential for new recreational sites. The
major stumbling block for new recreational facilities is
the tight budget now in force in all federal agencies. The
Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service
have an agreement concerning Fort Peck Reservoir
and the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.
These two organizations would work together on any
new recreational developments. Off-road vehicle travel
may become a problem around Lake Sakakawea, but
the National Wildlife Refuge has regulations prohibiting
driving off authorized roads.
RESPONSE 11. The figures generated for this
regional study are only an indication of potential prob-
lem areas. The indicator is relative and not absolute. A
detailed origin/designation analysis would be meaning-
less at this time because the actual origins, destina-
tions, shift composition and make up of the traffic are
unknown. It is acknowledged that impacts will occur
and will result in problems of congestion, increased
maintenance and possibly the need for safety
improvement. More study is clearly indicated and
should be conducted after mining plans are drafted.
RESPONSE 12. Copies of the Draft EIS were mailed
to the Montana and North Dakota highway depart-
ments.
RESPONSE 1 3. It is assumed that the out-of-pit haul
roads referred to are those shown on the tract maps on
pages 1 1 through 35. These haul roads and pit advance
lines are general in nature and may not reflect what
would occur when a mining company actually develops
the tract. Before these areas are mined, a specific min-
ing plan must be prepared and approved by the permit-
ting agency. This specific mining plan would include
out-of-pit haul roads which should consider property
and section lines.
RESPONSE 14. The major statutes relating to coal
leasing and mining are discussed on page 4 of the Draft
3-1
EIS. Appendices A and B were used to list other federal
and state statutes that may influence coal leasing and
development.
RESPONSE 15. It is agreed that the BLM and
National Park Service analyses were not designed for
the same purposes.
RESPONSE 16. The substance of the comment is
correct. The term "adverse", as used in the document
in reference to air quality (including visibility) impacts,
referred to the meaning customary in EIS analyses
under the National Environmental Policy Act. See the
Modifications and Corrections section, Air Quality,
Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 1 7. The Zenith tract was ranked last and
the company that initially expressed interest in the area
is no longer interested. The Regional Coal Team took
this into consideration when selecting Alternative 3 as
its preferred alternative. This alternative meets the leas-
ing target and provides balance between environmen-
tal impacts and making available additional coal
reserves in the Ft. Gnion coal region.
RESPONSE 1 8. Page 1 06 of the Draft EIS discussed
the expected impacts to the Heart River and Patterson
Lake. It does not mention the public well systems of
Belfield or South Heart. The impacts of mining on the
water available to these systems were considered dur-
ing the analysis and determined to be insignificant.
Replacing disturbed wells with wells that tap the
Fox Hills aquifer at depths that will cost $20,000 to drill
is a worst-case situation. Depth to this aquifer will vary
according to the tract location (see Figure 2-6, p. 88 of
the Draft EIS). The Dunn Center and Zenith tracts are
located where the Fox Hills aquifer is found at depths
deeper than the regional average. There also exists the
possibility of getting water from a shallower aquifer.
When a mining company initiates mining in an
area it must, by state and federal law. install a ground-
water monitoring network. As mining progresses, it
also must submit periodic reports including the data
collected from the monitoring network. In the Ft. Gnion
region, if the monitoring network is properly planned
and installed, there should not be a problem identifying
impacts associated with mining activities (N.D. Public
Service Commission, personal communication).
The typical procedure followed in the event of a
disturbed water source is as follows. A change in the
water source would be noticed by either the mining
company or the water user. If the water user notices a
change, he/she would usually go to the mining com-
pany. If the mining company agrees, the source would
be replaced. If not, the user would go to the state
regulatory authority. At this time the state geologists/
hydrologists make an assessment of the situation. If
mining is found to be the cause, the agency has the
authority to force the company to replace the source. If
the state agency finds that the company action is not
the cause or finds no evidence to suggest that the
company action is the cause, no action is taken. If a user
wants to pursue the situation further, he/she can hire a
consulting professional.
The most critical part of the process is the monitor-
ing network established at the onset of mining. There
may be a few cases where no determination can be
made, however, experience in the Ft. Gnion region has
been that these are atypical cases. Most of the time the
complaint never reaches the regulatory agency (N.D.
Public Service Commission, personal communica-
tion).
The increased cost of pumping would depend
upon many conditions, but the information below gives
approximate costs for various well depths and opera-
tion sizes. The estimates are per well for a pumping rate
of ten gallons per minute and a cost for electricity of
four cents per kilowatt hour.
Well Depth
Pump Size
Well Installation &
Development Cost
Yearly Cost to Yearly Cost to Yearly Cost to
Provide 600 gpd Provide 2400 gpd Provide 4200 gpd
100 ft
500 ft
1 ,000 ft
'/2HP
1 '/2 HP
3 HP
$2,000.00
10,000.00
20,000.00
$7.30
21.90
43.80
$29.20
87.60
175.20
$51.10
1 53.30
306.60
3-2
A farm operation with no animals or a residence would
use about 600 gpd, a farm with some livestock or a
small ranch operation may use about 2400 gpd, and a
larger livestock operation may require closer to 4200
gpd from wells. Maintenance costs are much harder to
estimate but larger pumps would have larger repair
bills.
RESPONSE 19. The Air Quality Supplement indi-
cates the amount of sulfur dioxide pollution will
increase in the vicinity of the Zenith tract under Alterna-
tives 4-6 but not to the extent of exceeding any applica-
ble federal or state standards indicative of levels harm-
ful to health or agriculture. No significant increase in
ozone pollution is predicted in the Supplement. The
Supplement does predict that the federal (secondary
ambient) standard, as well as the North Dakota stand-
ard, for 24-hour average TSP (total suspended particu-
lates) will be exceeded in the vicinity of the Zenith tract
but only under Alternatives 4-6. Such 24-hour exceed-
ance episodes would not be expected to affect human
health or agriculture.
The effect of air pollution on crop yield is expected
to be insignificant or nil. This is based on the modeling
predictions that worst-case concentrations of pollutants
would be well below ambient air quality standards in all
cases. An exception would be the 24-hour average
suspended particulate concentrations may exceed the
standards under occasional worst-case conditions in
small areas immediately adjacent to coal tracts. The
ambient standards are set at levels to protect public
health and welfare, including agriculture, based on the
best available current knowledge.
Vegetation is not significantly affected by sus-
pended particulate matter, even at concentrations in
excess of ambient air quality standards. Nitrogen
oxides at concentrations below ambient standards are
not known to be harmful to vegetation and are to some
extent beneficial by providing assimilable nitrogen. Sul-
fur dioxide, on the other hand, has been reported to be
harmful to some species under certain conditions, with
species sensitivity being widely variable. Potential
effects on crops of sulfur dioxide pollution from coal
development in western North Dakota were evaluated
in considerable detail in the Final West Central North
Dakota Regional Study on Energy Development (BLM
and State of North Dakota, 1978). It was noted in that
study that sulfur dioxide concentrations somewhat
below ambient air quality standards have been reported
to be harmful to such crops as wheat, oats, and alfalfa.
The most serious report was a German publication
which indicated sulfur dioxide at an average concentra-
tion of 39 ug/m3 for the entire growing season could
cause a 15 percent wheat crop loss; at 25 ug/m3
throughout the growing season, it could cause slight
leaf discoloration and necrosis in oats and barley, but
no yield loss was reported. It was concluded in the West
Central EIS that no significant crop losses would be
expected from the coal development projects under
consideration in that study, because predicted long-
term sulfur dioxide concentrations would be far below
any reported harmful levels. The concentrations pre-
dicted were in the range of 7.5 ug/m3 annual average,
with 5 ug/m3 representing the existing background (in
the seven county study area) and 2.5 ug/m3 represent-
ing the predicted maximum increase due to the proj-
ects under consideration.
The long-term average sulfur dioxide concentra-
tions predicted by modeling in the present study are
very similar to those predicted in the West Central North
Dakota study, although they would extend over a larger
area. The annual average incremental sulfur dioxide
concentration predicted for most of the Ft. Gnion
region under Alternative 3 is 1 .4 ug/m3. With a back-
ground concentration of 3 ug/m3 and an additional
increment of approximately 3 ug/m3 due to other
expected developments (non-BLM projects), a total
annual average sulfur dioxide concentration of 7-8
ug/m3 may be expected for most of the Ft. Gnion
region. Some areas may fall below that level, and a few
small localities may be slightly higher. Figure 19-1
shows the isopleth map of the predicted annual aver-
age sulfur dioxide concentrations.
Although the Air Quality Supplement study indi-
cates that substantially higher sulfur dioxide concentra-
tions can occur for short periods as a result of the coal
leasing project alternatives, it must be borne in mind
that such episodes represent worst-case, short-term
happenings which would be infrequent (a few times per
year), and such episodes, because of their short dura-
tion (a few days) and low frequency, would have no
effect on crops.
Under the maximum coal leasing alternative
(Alternative 6), the area of sulfur dioxide concentrations
exceeding 4.5 ug/m3 would be extended, as shown in
Figure 1 9-2, and the average concentration would be
approximately 1 ug/m3 higher than for Alternative 3. In
one small locality (near Mandan, ND) the concentration
would exceed 10.5 ug/m3, as with Alternative 3. It is
concluded from this information that no perceptible
loss in crop yields is expected to result from the coal
leasing project.
RESPONSE 20. Past experience indicates that
communities near energy developments experience
severe financial strains when population influxes are
significant. Local property owners may bear a large part
of the financial risk/burden in cases where the required
increase in infrastructure (sewage, water, schools, etc.)
is great. Similarily, the burden of long-term payment
would be on the residents of the area once the con-
struction work force leaves.
RESPONSE 21. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 22. The intent of the quoted sentence
was to note that the North Dakota State Department of
3-3
3-4
r
r1
<
co
c
o 0
f—
-5 =
o
z —
^
O 0)
<
w2
Q
°5
X
h-
X
O
2
<
z
<
h-
o
<w
CO
0
\
M
<u £
en .2
fO *-"
u. (0
fM
flP
Ol
< b
t-^
-= u
I—
is
3
5U
<1z
r\i«
o-e
wl
o
o
o
o"
o
co
cm"
111
CO
to
.o
o
CO
o
CM
-O
3-5
Health (NDSDH) was apprised of the regional modeling
study plan, including its objectives and scope, at the
start of the study, and was invited at that time to offer
advice, opinions, and relevant data. This took place in a
meeting at the NDSDH offices in Bismarck, March 9,
1 982. Later the preliminary results and report draft were
reviewed and discussed with representatives of NDSDH
(together with representatives of the Montana Air Qual-
ity Bureau, EPA Region IX-Helena, and Regional Coal
Team staff) in a meeting in Billings, June 22, 1982.
Through these meetings and additional informal cor-
respondence, the NDSDH provided valuable input and
assistance to the air quality study, however, neither the
sentence quoted above nor any other in the document
was intended, nor should be construed to imply that the
NDSDH was responsible in any way for the study, its
interpretations, or conclusions. This same caveat also
applies to the Montana Air Quality Bureau.
RESPONSE 23. The sentence on page 6 of the Draft
EIS referred to the assumption that only two of the six
facilities that have permit applications pending would
be supplied with coal from the bypass and mainte-
nance tracts of Alternative 1. All six facilities are
included in the assumed 1997 emissions inventory
(Appendix F , as corrected). The two facilities referred
to above are included in Appendix F but only counted
once.
RESPONSE 24. The change has been made. See
the Modifications and Corrections section, Air Quality,
Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 25. The correction has been made. See
the Modifications and Corrections section, Air Quality,
Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 26. The comments are correct and are
taken to be substantially in agreement with the intended
meaning of the modeling studies report.
The analysis demonstrates that PSD increments
can be exceeded by project emissions but does not
predict whether higher exceedances would occur at
any other Class I area besides Theodore Roosevelt
National Park-North, nor with what frequency. To
determine more definitively the worst-case pollutant
concentrations for each Class I area under each project
alternative would require a large expenditure of time
and effort not available to this study. See the change in
the Modifications and Corrections section, Air Quality,
Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 27. The problem of determining and
accounting for true background pollutant concentra-
tions is difficult and imprecise, owing mainly to the
paucity of reliable ambient air quality monitoring data at
pristine locations and times. This was discussed in the
Air Quality Supplement on page S- 1 5. Because of this,
it is true and unavoidable that some small degree of
double counting of baseline emissions occurred in the
modeling study (BLM, 1 982). It is believed that the data
and methodology employed in establishing back-
ground concentrations (described on page S- 1 5 and in
more detail in the Air Quality and Climate Technical
Report) and the fact that the monitoring data employed
were taken primarily from rural locations remote from
known emission sources, produced the most reliable
background concentrations available. This minimized
the effect of double counting. The results and conclu-
sions of the study are not substantially affected by this
factor.
A recent, related air quality study by the Air Quality
Division of the National Park Service ( 1 982) relied upon
modeling data from the North Dakota State Depart-
ment of Health. In this study a similar limitation was
encountered, as pointed out in the following excerpt:
". . .the observed data include contributions from those
increment consuming sources now in operation, and
therefore, some double counting is involved. Because
individual source contributions cannot be determined
from the monitoring data and source contribution
estimates for all modeling scenarios are not available,
the significance of the double counting cannot be easily
assessed."
RESPONSE 28. It is agreed the data and statements
on pages S-5 and S-36 are insufficient to support an
inference that the pH of precipitation in North Dakota is
increasing.
The pH value of 5.65 for pure water and pure
carbon dioxide at standard pressure is still generally
accepted as a theoretical value for the pure materials,
but it is currently recognized by researchers investigat-
ing these phenomena that actual atmospheric precipi-
tation may not have the same pH because it is a more
complex composition. Hence, the significance of pre-
cipitation pH measurements is a subject of current
research and controversy, and all statements in the
document pertaining to this subject should be viewed
with this caveat in mind, as pointed out on pages S-7,
column two, paragraph two and S-8, column one,
paragraph two of the Air Quality Supplement.
RESPONSE 29. Wetland habitat which has been
created provides an important experience for applica-
tion to surface mined land reclamation. Contour and
drainage patterns have proven important to the devel-
opment of these water bodies, and water retention has
been aided by the application of local clays or bentonite
to the soil. Seedings, transplantings, and fertilization are
other common practices that would be used. Cattails
and other aquatic vegetative species have been estab-
lished on the Western Energy pond at Colstrip, at
Westmoreland's ponding area A, and at the Peabody
box cut reservoir. These water bodies have been used
for several years by several waterfowl species.
RESPONSE 30. See response 29 concerning
wetlands.
3-6
RESPONSE 31 . The purpose of the Ft. Union Coal
Region Environmental Impact Statement is to examine
the environmental consequences of leasing and devel-
oping federal coal reserves in compliance with the fed-
eral coal management regulations. The determination
of the need for further coal leasing was covered in the
Federal Coal Management Program environmental
statement under which the Draft E1S was prepared.
Where the programmatic EIS has analyzed information
and program alternatives, the issues were not covered
again in this EIS.
The determination of fair market value for coal is
not a purpose of this EIS. After the sale but before a
lease is issued, a determination will be made on
whether or not the high bid for each tract reflects fair
market value. If it is determined fair market value was
not received, a lease will not be issued.
RESPONSE 32. Whether the proposed coal leasing
would bring new requests for waivers of air quality laws
is conjectural. Whether any such requests would be
granted would be determined by the people of the
states involved through their agencies (see Appendix B,
page A-4, Draft EIS) as well as the federal government
through the EPA. The Air Quality Supplement dis-
cusses the problem of acid rainfall (pages S-5, S-7, S-8,
S-35, S-36, and S-37). See the Modifications and Cor-
rections section, Air Quality, Chapter 3 and response
28.
RESPONSE 33. The Final Environmental State-
ment for the Federal Coal Management Program dis-
cusses the various alternatives to coal in providing for
energy independence in the United States. Since they
are discussed in that document, this EIS only
addressed alternatives to leasing targets.
RESPONSE 34. See response 1 8 concerning water
well systems.
RESPONSE 35. See response 15 concerning the
BLM and NPS analyses.
RESPONSE 36. See response 16 concerning
adverse air quality impacts.
RESPONSE 37. See response 17 concerning the
ranking of the Zenith tract.
RESPONSE 38. See response 18 concerning well
systems.
RESPONSE 39. See response 1 9 concerning sulfur
dioxide pollution.
RESPONSE 40. See response 20 concerning popu-
lation impacts.
RESPONSE 41. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 42. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 43. See response 22 concerning the
development of the air quality study.
RESPONSE 44. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 2.
RESPONSE 45. Appendix F has been corrected as
noted. See the Modifications and Correction section,
Appendix F.
RESPONSE 46. See response 23 concerning facili-
ties with pending permits.
RESPONSE 47. The change has been made. See
the Modifications and Corrections section, Air Quality,
Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 48. The modifications made in the
MESOPGFF model for the Ft. Gnion Air Quality study
did not alter or affect the basic physical theory or
mathematical methodology of the model. It merely
expanded its capacity to handle larger numbers of
emission sources and types of pollutants and to accept
area sources in addition to point sources. The nature of
these modifications was discussed verbally and infor-
mally with the North Dakota State Department of
Health modeling expert, Martin Schock, during the
course of the study, and a check run of a particular
scenario was made by both groups and found on com-
parison to produce similar results for that particular
scenario. However, the NDSDH has not formally
reviewed the modification and has not approved its use
for this or any other study. Such a formal review by the
cognizant regulatory agency, as well as approval by the
EPA, would be requisite for use of the modification for
air quality modeling in connection with a PSD permit
application.
RESPONSE 49. The correction has been made in
the Modifications and Correction section, Air Quality,
Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 50. The term "study region" in the
quoted sentence referred to the defined boundaries of
the Ft. Gnion Coal Region, as shown in the Air Quality
Supplement, Figure 3-1 (page S-13), "Ft. Gnion Coal
Region Study Area and Project Tract Locations," and in
Map 1 of the Draft EIS (pocket). Within this meaning,
the sentence is correct. However, the entire meteoro-
logical data base provided by the North Dakota State
Department of Health, which included the Rapid City
data, was utilized in the modeling studies. The data
stations and related information are listed in the separ-
ate Air Quality and Climate Technical Report.
RESPONSE 51.
modeling study.
See response 26 concerning the
3-7
RESPONSE 52. See response 27 concerning back-
ground pollutant concentrations.
RESPONSE 53. The correction has been made. See
the Modifications and Corrections section. Air Quality,
Chapter 2.
RESPONSE 54. The report in point provides addi-
tional data on the effects of trace element emissions
from a coal-fired power plant. Findings reported in the
publication (North Dakota State Department of Health,
1 979) support and expand on the conclusions of earlier
research cited. The findings do not otherwise affect the
analysis presented on pages S-37 and S-38 of the Air
Quality Supplement. The reference has been added.
See the Modifications and Corrections section,
References.
RESPONSE 55. See response 28 concerning pH
values.
RESPONSE 56. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 57. See response 32 concerning air
quality laws.
RESPONSE 58. See response 18 concerning dis-
turbed water wells.
RESPONSE 59. The statements referred to indicate
the desire by the Regional Coal Team and the BLM to
consider public opinion in formulating the preferred
alternative and preparing the Draft EIS. It is through
public input that information which was not available or
not known was gathered and used in the conclusions
and decisions. Many times specific information pre-
sented through the public forum enhances the value of
environmental statements. It is also through such a
process that the RCT is made aware of special con-
cerns, however, the decisions that are made are not
solely based upon public participation. These decisions
must also weigh information related to the interest of
the entire country. Based on all of the information
available, a decision is made which provides balance
between the national interest, environmental concerns,
and special local concerns.
RESPONSE 60. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 61 . As intimated on page 50 of the Draft
EIS, substantial tonnages of coal must be supplied
annually through the operational life of the existing
end-use facilities. If the federal coal reserves under con-
sideration are not developed, additional private coal
resources must be leased if the facilities are to remain in
operation. The figures in the Draft EIS on page 50
represent continued operation of mines and facilities
associated with the production maintenance/by-pass
tracts. Acreage figures would be similar whether or not
federal coal is leased. Only reserve ownership would
change appreciably.
RESPONSE 62. The 1% disruption to Ft. Union
regional agriculture is attributed to direct mining
acreage disruption and applies to all alternatives includ-
ing Alternative 6. The figure is cumulative for mining
disturbance, and it also takes into account acreage
estimates for end-use and ancillary facilities. No estima-
tion was made for any crop acreage lost due to regional
community expansion; however, even if community
expansion acreage were to equal mined land disturb-
ance, regional agricultural disruption still would not
approach significant levels. Agricultural support econ-
omy impacts were considered to be directly propor-
tional to mined land disturbance. The point made in the
Draft EIS was that the 1% disruption, or even a 2%
disruption, would not approach the regional effects of
existing fluctuations in the agricultural economy due to
weather, interest rates, and supply and demand.
RESPONSE 63. Off-site impacts have been
addressed in the Draft EIS as shown by these examples:
Impacts were addressed for air quality in Chapter 3
(pages S-34 to S-42) of the Air Quality Information
Supplement. Off-site issues to agriculture include dis-
cussions of emissions, acid rain, surface and subsur-
face water pollution, and aquifer damage. Significant
off-site impacts to wildlife were discussed in the Draft
EIS. These discussions focused on the impacts of
increased numbers of people, construction of roads,
subdivisions, pipelines, and other items. Discussions
on transportation and rights-of-way were centered on
off-site impacts. Most of the discussions within the eco-
nomic conditions section of the Draft EIS deal with
off-site change to surrounding communities. Changes
in social conditions were also discussed and are off-site
impacts. The Draft EIS has addressed the off-site
impacts to the fullest extent possible within the con-
straints of time, budget, and research capabilities.
Models were used and contracts were issued to address
impacts to farm and ranch operations, economic
impacts to communities, and air quality impacts within
the region. Since this analysis is a regional statement,
the scope of the document focuses on regional impli-
cations rather than site-specific impacts.
RESPONSE 64. The statement quoted on page 41
of the Draft EIS is an assumption necessary for analyti-
cal purposes. Successful reclamation of wetlands,
woody draws and native prairie vegetation types has not
yet been proven because of the time frames required to
reconstruct these ecosystems to their pre-mined pro-
ductivity. The time required to reclaim these ecosys-
tems is from 1 5 to 20 years and up to 50 years for
woody draws.
3-8
An example of the state-of-the-art for wetland rec-
lamation is given in response 29. No research for
woody draw restoration is presently funded in Montana,
but Western Energy and the Westmoreland Company
have rehabilitaion efforts underway. These efforts
include transplanting shrubs, seedlings, and tublings.
Preliminary results are encouraging but not conclusive.
In 1 978, Consolidation Coal Company established
a demonstration site on the Glenharold mine in North
Dakota to test mined-land reclamation procedures
needed to replace woodland ecosystems. Factors
being evaluated are: potted stock versus bare-root
stock, Vermeer tree spade transplantings, effects of soil
depth, slope and aspect, and position importance.
Information to date shows survival rates for juniper,
green ash and plum of 96.8 percent, 79.6 percent and
77.5 percent, respectively (Williamson and Wangerud,
1980).
In a related experiment on physical and environ-
mental factors of woodland ecosystems, Williamson, et
al ( 1 981 ) reported that regional aquifers are a relatively
important source of water to the woody vegetation in
draws. Data indicates that the flow generated locally
within woody draws is approximately 30 times greater
than the flow to the draws via coal seams. Recharge
from local infiltration within the draws is likely to be a
more important source of water. Three factors are
important for the presence of woody vegetation: (1)
landform, (2) slope-aspect, and (3) shallow water table
outcrops. Of these three factors, landform and aspect
are the most important.
In North Dakota, Power, et al ( 1 98 1 ), reported on a
study in which soil was reconstructed by building a
wedge 40 to 210 cm thick with productive subsoil (B
and upper C horizon) on top of leveled sodic mine
spoils derived from shale. Topsoil (A horizon) was then
spread over the wedge at 0, 20, and 60 cm depths. Four
crops — alfalfa, crested wheatgrass, native warm sea-
son grasses and spring wheat — were grown each year
on these plots from 1975 through 1979. Yield of all
crops increased as total soil thickness (topsoil plus
subsoil) increased to the 90-150 cm range. Highest
yields equaled or exceeded yields on similar undis-
turbed soil types under good management. In most
instances, over 90 percent of the maximum yields were
obtained when 70 cm of subsoil plus 20 cm of topsoil
covered the sodic spoil. Yield from 60 cm of topsoil
were similar to those from 20 cm of topsoil.
In a study of livestock and vegetative performance
on reclaimed and non-mined rangeland in North
Dakota, Hoffman, et al. ( 1 980), made a comparison of
post-mining productivity and use from a reclaimed site
near Center, North Dakota. Productivity on the
reclaimed site was comparable to that on non-mined
land.
No applications for bond release have been sub-
mitted for major surface mining operations within the
Ft. Union region since the enactment of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in 1 977.
No full release applications are expected before 1 987,
since SMCRA requires a 10-year mandatory operator
responsibility and a liability period following revege-
taton.
RESPONSE 65. Disturbance of the sod would cause
dust pollution. The degree of pollution would be deter-
mined by the mitigation or control measures
employed. Best available control technology would be
required by established regulations and would mini-
mize impacts.
RESPONSE 66. Natural springs would not be
replaced and disturbed water veins would not be reacti-
vated. Natural springs and wells tapping disturbed
aquifers would be replaced by water wells tapping other
undisturbed aquifers. Information related to water pol-
lution and depletion is covered on pages 105 through
107 of the Draft EIS.
RESPONSE 67. Sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-
fired power plants have been a topic of concern for
some time. Air quality standards have been promul-
gated and research on sulfur dioxide emissions and
bioenvironmental effects on the grassland system have
been studied.
Metabolic selenium deficiency which causes white
muscle disease and stillborn calves in cattle may be
related to air pollution from coal-fired power plants. In
1966, this problem developed on a ranch with 400
cattle about one mile from the Heskett Station (Man-
dan) power plant in North Dakota. Although the sele-
nium level of the soil did not indicate that selenium
deficiency should occur, it has been suggested by Hast-
ings (personal communication) and others that the
sulfates emitted from the point sources near the ranch
were being taken up by forage plants in great enough
quantity to inhibit the metabolizing of selenium by cat-
tle. Other stack emissions, including arsenic, mercury,
cadmium, thallium, copper, zinc, and silver, can also
affect selenium intake by animals (Van Fleet 1976).
There are no studies or indications that we are aware of
that cattle near power plants would not feed on the
grass that is available.
The Mandan power plant in question was con-
structed prior to existing federal regulations governing
the emissions of coal-fired electrical generating facili-
ties. Emissions from plants constructed following the
Ft. Union coal lease would be considerably less. Under
current emissions limitations, sulfur dioxide and sulfate
produced by additional coal-fired facilities would be
much lower in magnitude and may not inhibit the
metabolism of selenium and other trace elements, if
emissions standards are not exceeded.
At the Colstrip generating facility in southeastern
Montana, a long-term air quality study, "The Bioenvi-
ronmental Impact Of A Coal-fired Power Plant," was
initiated in 1975 by the National Environmental
Research Laboratory of the Environmental Protection
3-9
Agency. In a report on findings of this research (Lud-
wick et al. 1 981 ), it was concluded "Although the Col-
strip power plant plumes have been clearly identified,
the quantitative levels of sulfur dioxide are very low . . .
we are dealing in the parts per billion range . . . Subtle
effects on the biota, with time, have been noted."
In a related southeastern Montana study
(Heitschmidt et al. 1978), where sulphur dioxide was
applied to western wheatgrass at levels exceeding ten
times the allowable emission standards, it was
observed that "sulfur dioxide did not significantly alter
the net production of above-ground parts, the growth
rates of above-ground parts, net assimilation rates, nor
did they effect the leaf area ratios of either western
wheatgrass or the entire community. The effects of
SO2 on leaf growth, and the N:S ratios in plant material,
indicated that there may be sulfur deficiency in the
grassland studied."
Similar results have been reported in Wyoming
(Bridgman and Long 1 976) and in Arizona (Davis, et al.
1966). A study (Ferenbaugh 1978) on the more sus-
ceptible species Indian rice grass, Oryzopsis hyme-
noides, found no deleterious effects with sulfur dioxide
levels within emissions standards. "At concentrations
below .13 ppm the sulfur dioxide appeared to have a
beneficial effect on productivity."
While at present the results of sulfur dioxide stu-
dies would indicate that there should not be a measur-
able effect on grasslands if power plants are properly
constructed with sulfur dioxide emissions rates which
do not exceed current air quality standards. Presten
(1979) has observed "the native grassland system
responds slowly to sulfur dioxide exposure. Early
responses are subtle . . . There is a real danger in
attempting to extrapolate the results of these studies to
a time scale of decades. The grassland system in the
study plots may adapt with no long-term damage. This
ecosystem is progressing to a new equlibrium . . .
Effects could over a period of decades cause substan-
tial changes in the capacity of the system to support
grazing pressure at today's levels."
Within the north-central Great Plains, there pres-
ently are no studies being funded in the area of bioen-
vironmental effects of acid rain. Under auspices of the
Association of State Agricultural Experiment Stations
of the North Central Region, two monitoring stations
have been established in Montana under the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program. The North Dakota
State Department of Health, with funding support by
the BLM, is carrying out research on acid rain emis-
sions in North Dakota. An atlas produced by the pro-
gram, "Distribution of Surface Waters Sensitive to
Acidic Precipitation," indicates that waters in the region
tend to be highly buffered and therefore highly resistant
to changes in pH due to acid rain.
As indicated in the Draft EIS, the calcareous soils
of the Ft. Union region also are highly buffered against
acid rain effects. Direct effects of acid precipitation on
vegetation, and particularly upon the cereal grain crops,
in the Ft. Union region has yet to be studied in depth.
Indications from studies in other geographic areas
where acid rain occurs would lead to the conclusion
that data from such studies in the Ft. Union region
would be essential to a full understanding of air pollu-
tion effects on the environment from coal-fired energy
facilities. See response 1 9 for additional discussions on
air quality.
RESPONSE 68. See response 64 concerning rec-
lamation of woody draws and response 29 concerning
wetlands.
RESPONSE 69. The guarantee that energy would be
produced or that consumers would have to pay for
project failures is beyond the scope of this document.
Permitting facilities is a state responsibility and rates are
set by state public utility or public service commissions
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
RESPONSE 70. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 7 1 . The thirty day extension for public
comment could not be accommodated in order to
meet the schedule established for the Ft. Union coal
sale. The comment period was extended ten days to
allow for additional comments on the air quality sup-
plement.
RESPONSE 72. See response 63 concerning off site
impacts.
RESPONSE 73. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease coal.
RESPONSE 74. The population figures used in the
Site Specific Analyses and the Draft EIS for Alternative
3 were developed under different developmental and
analytical assumptions, so it is difficult to compare
these figures.
The Regional Coal Team determined the Draft EIS
would only address regional implications of the pro-
posed Meridian exchange in relation to Alternative 3.
The Draft EIS shows population implications resulting
from the exchange under Alternative 3 on pages 142
and 1 43. A specific population forecast for the Meridian
exchange was not made.
A mistake was made in copying baseline popula-
tion figures (Alternative 1 ) for McCone County in the Air
Quality Supplement. The figure on page SA-1 1 should
indicate a population of 2,773 for McCone County in
the year 2000. See Modifications and Corrections sec-
tion, Air Quality Supplement, Appendix H.
RESPONSE 75. The Regional Coal Team did not
consider two 85,000 BBL/day synfuel plants to be a
viable alternative.
3-10
The various end-use facilities are numerous and
depend on a variety of uncontrollable factors. The coal
is lignite and crumbles during transportation, therefore
the best utilization is mine-mouth conversion to electric
power or some type of synfuel conversion plant (lique-
faction or gasification). The actual end-use cannot be
determined at this time.
Approximately two years ago, this nation was
experiencing a shortage of gasoline and prices were
rising at an alarming rate. Actions were taken to start
planning for providing alternative energy. Now, with a
world oil glut, these alternative actions have been
placed in a "wait and see" position. New electric power
generation facilities have been drastically cut back and
future planning is more cautious.
Building gasification plants has been extremely
expensive and the price of natural gas has not risen to
make a plant cost effective. If natural gas continues to
rise at its current rate or if technology changes, this type
of plant may become feasible in the future.
It is important to remember that market conditions
and future changes in technology are the determining
factors in deciding what type of plant would be devel-
oped and when it would be developed. Industry must
submit a mine plan permit EIS and a facility siting EIS
before a plant is developed. When these are submitted,
the impacts associated with development can accu-
rately and specifically be identified.
RESPONSE 76. The Draft EIS predicts that air qual-
ity standards for sulfur dioxide and suspended particu-
lates would be exceeded in certain areas if imple-
mented as described in alternatives and assumptions.
Implementation will not be permitted by state agencies
unless each specific applicant can provide control
measures to stay within the standards or can show that
the degree to which the standard is exceeded would
have no adverse impacts.
RESPONSE 77. The fiscal projections appearing on
page A- 18 of the Draft EIS assume that coal in the
Wibaux-Beach tracts would be mined in both states at
the same time. This assumption was made to conduct
the analysis in the absence of a mining plan. Conversa-
tions with Dennis Sandburg of Tenneco Coal, Glendive,
Montana in August and December of 1982, indicate
that this assumption is appropriate from Tenneco's
standpoint.
RESPONSE 78. In each tract area, soil potential for
suitable plant growth material following surface mining
was evaluated using the National Soils Handbook
standards listed in the SCS technical guides.
Two separate lifts of soil are necessary in removing
soil material from prime farmland that would be mined.
In Montana and North Dakota, topsoil must be
removed and stored separately from overburden.
When the soil is respread during reclamation, the mate-
rial must be replaced in its original order. In Montana,
the approximate original contours of the land must also
be restored. It was estimated that sufficient suitable
plant growth material of good to fair quality would be
available within the upper 60 inches of topsoil to
respread tract areas disturbed as a result of mining. All
lands must have agricultural productivity restored to
within 90 percent of pre-mining productivity levels.
Based on the analysis described above, the provi-
sions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act and all applicable state stipulations, it was esti-
mated that sufficient suitable plant growth material of
good to fair quality would be available within the upper
60 inches of topsoil to respread tract areas disturbed
during mining activities to a depth of 20 to 57 inches.
An exception is the Zenith tract with only 1 6 inches of
good to fair quality material within the top 60 inches.
While it is recognized that soil series with less than these
averages occur within the various tracts, the averaging
of suitable material in respreading would compensate
for these areas. In these instances, it would be possible
for an area's post-mining soil profile to contain substan-
tially greater quantities of suitable plant growth material
than presently exists there. See also response 64 con-
cerning reclamation of woody draws.
RESPONSE 79. The social changes anticipated in
the event of coal development are discussed by each
alternative in the Impacts section of the Draft EIS.
Under some alternatives these impacts are predicted to
be significant. Appendix G illustrates the population
influx which would accompany Ft. Union coal devel-
opment. It is expected that many of the jobs (primary
and especially secondary) would go to local people.
RESPONSE 80. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to develop
federal coal.
RESPONSE 81. References are listed in a separate
section following the appendices in the Draft EIS.
Where a specific information source is used in the text,
the reference is noted. Nineteen research and data
sources for water were used during the preparation of
the document and are listed in the water section of the
reference list (page R-2). The primary sources for water
information are cited throughout the narrative on pages
103-107.
The methodologies, assumptions, limitations and
authorities used in the air quality analysis are presented
in the Air Quality Supplement (pages S-12, S-14, S-15,
S- 16 and R-l and R-22). Evaluation of these technically
complex subjects is difficult, so independent reviews
were performed by technical organizations, including
state agencies and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Assumptions for facilities were based upon the
experience of industry. The basis for the water needs
comes from Basin Electric Cooperative's experience in
planning, designing, and constructing of electric qen-
3-11
eration facilities. The water needs for gasification and
liquefaction facilities were based on the designs of 'he
Great Plains Coal Gasification Project and the Nokota
Company's Dunn-Nokota Methanol Project. The same
approach was used in developing the air emission rates
and employment figures. All information for the facili-
ties was developed in this manner and compared with
other similar projects planned throughout the nation.
Where a specific project was planned, available infor-
mation from industry was used. Similar types of sour-
ces were used in analysis of other resource impacts.
RESPONSE 82. The information supplied by Meri-
dian Land and Mineral Company is found on page 60 of
the Draft EIS in the middle of the second column.
Meridian felt this was the only alternative over which it
would have direct control should development occur.
The expansion to the 85,000 barrel-per-day methanol
facility was an assumption by BLM that the initial facility
could be expanded because of the available coal
reserves. This assumption was made to analyze the
worst case situations of development for one tract. The
date of construction (Table 1-11) was for initial con-
struction and was furnished by Meridian.
RESPONSE 83. The preferred alternative selected
by the RCT was prepared to provide the level of produc-
tion necessary to meet the leasing target established by
the Secretary of the Interior. The project staff had pre-
pared for the RCT a level of production which would be
expected for the region. This expected level of produc-
tion was just below 800 million tons. The other alterna-
tives can be compared to the preferred alternative and
the impacts viewed with regard to the RCT's preference.
One of the reasons for selecting a preferred alternative
is to give the public an idea of what can be expected and
provide a basis for the comparison of impacts if another
alternative is chosen.
RESPONSE 84. The statements in the Air Quality
Supplement on pages S- 1 6 and S-27 about cumulative
24-hour average (ambient) TSP concentrations and
allowable Class II increments, pertain to two different
types of standards. This is explained on pages S-8 to
S-10 of the Air Quality Supplement.
The statements on pages S-36, S-37, and S-41
about the effects of acid precipitation on wat_ quality
conclude on page S-41 that "indirect effects ... on
water quality resulting from air pollution will likely be
insignificant." This is a best scientific judgement made
on current information even though that information is
inadequate to enable quantitative evaluation.
Regarding the statements about the effects of
radioactive and other trace elements, it is not unreason-
able to expect some cumulative long-term effects.
These effects would not necessarily be significantly
harmful, and they cannot be accurately predicted from
available knowledge. The effects of radioactive emis-
sions are expected to be insignificant as explained on
page S-39 of the Air Quality Supplement.
Also see response 31 concerning the purpose of
the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal coal.
RESPONSE 85. See response 7 1 concerning the Ft.
Union schedule.
RESPONSE 86. Economic impacts of coal devel-
opment on farms and ranches in Montana and North
Dakota were estimated from a gross income aspect
and from the net income disruptions which could
occur. The purpose was to estimate the economic
impacts on agricultural production and incomes, the
effects on the stability of operations, and effects on the
welfare of farm and ranch families during potential coal
development. The economic analysis was divided into
two segments: ( 1 ) the impact on management, opera-
tion, gross sales, and net incomes by taking cropland
and grazing land out of production; and (2) potential
impacts on agricultural production, sales, and net
income as a result of mining each tract. Also analyzed
was how individual farm and ranch operations and the
operator's family would be affected as the tract is
mined.
In estimating net income effects, information was
gathered about each operational unit including the por-
tions of each operation inside and outside the proposed
coal mining tracts. Also gathered were data on crop
and pasture yields, rental rates, land values, livestock
production rates, grazing fees, and other organization
and input features.
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, utilized an ongoing national cost-of-
production study in developing the analysis. This study
develops representative cost of production budgets for
crop enterprises by type of farming areas in the United
States. Crop enterprise budgets for areas within Mon-
tana and North Dakota were utilized. These representa-
tive operation budgets did include estimates for
machinery costs.
RESPONSE 87. The state-of-the-art in mined land
reclamation is further discussed in responses 29 and
64.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA) was enacted in 1977. Federal reclamation
requirements and state regulations instituted since that
time provide for a 1 0-year period following revegetation
prior to application for bonding release. Mining and
reclamation activities which fall under the provisions of
SMCRA would not be subject to review of reclamation
successes before 1 987. The legal question of reclama-
tion will not be resolved until that time. Reclamation
would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for each
bond release application.
Lands which are summer fallowed, plowed, and
tilled but left unseeded during a growing season are a
major element in the dryland farming operations of the
existing environment. These lands left bare of vegeta-
tion for a full year in the dryfarming cycle constitute 40
to 50 percent, on the average, of the dryland acreage in
3-12
any given year. Any assessment of air pollution effects
and erosional impacts resulting from mining must be
discussed within the broader context of existing non-
point sources of pollution such as the vast acreages of
summer fallow that occur in the area.
Although in the short term soil disturbance during
peak mining years would somewhat exceed that
acreage presently left bare due to annual summer fal-
low, reclamation regulations specify that stockpiled
materials must be stabilized and protected with a cover
of quick growing plants or other means so that the
topsoil is preserved.
Also see response 31 concerning the purpose of
the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal coal.
RESPONSE 88. The amount of water committed to
coal development as a result of leasing federal coal is
shown in Tables 1-5 through 1-1 1 , pp. 52-62 of the Draft
EIS. The water needs of the mine could be taken from
impoundments and the Fox Hills aquifer without affect-
ing the water supplies of surrounding farms or ranches.
The quantity of water required fcr the facilities would
have to be taken from the Yellowstone/Missouri river
system. Studies by state and federal agencies show that
this amount of water would be available. The states of
Montana and North Dakota have the responsibility of
permitting specific water uses.
RESPONSE 89. See response 7 1 concerning the Ft.
Union schedule.
RESPONSE 90. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need for leasing
federal coal.
RESPONSE 9 1 . The Ft. Gnion Draft EIS is a regional
assessment and as such is not meant to quantify
impacts to the degree your comment suggests, how-
ever, many of the studies and analyses completed in the
course of preparing the Draft EIS are quantitative and
identify as far as possible the severity of impacts.
Prior to issuing mining permits and facility con-
struction and operating permits, more detailed anal-
yses will be completed. It is at this stage that the detailed
information regarding mining plans and facilities
becomes available.
Severity of impacts is discussed in the Draft EIS
and its supporting documents including the Site Spe-
cific Analysis for each tract, the Air Quality Supplement,
and the Agricultural Economic tract reports.
Responses to comments generated during the Draft
EIS review period contribute to detail and significances
of the impacts in a number of areas, especially for air
quality, agriculture, and water resources.
RESPONSE 92. The potential impacts of air pollu-
tion and acid rain are discussed in the Air Quality
Supplement.
All toxic wastes will have to be disposed in sites
approved by state and federal agencies. There are
hazardous waste disposal sites within the Ft. Gnion
region and they have caused no problems (North
Dakota State Health Department). These sites are
designed to ensure that the toxic wastes are isolated
from the hydrologic systems. Disposal of toxic wastes
would cause no significant impact to water resources,
agriculture, or the general public. Water quality degra-
dation is discussed in the Draft EIS on pages 105 and
106.
RESPONSE 93. See response 63 concerning off-site
impacts.
RESPONSE 94. Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS provides
a list of all of the personnel involved in the Ft. Gnion
Regional EIS. Gnder each name is provided a descrip-
tion of the individual's background and experience plus
a description of the responsibilities each had in the
preparation of the document. These descriptions point
out who was responsible for preparing the various sec-
tions as well as identifying the contractor for the Air
Quality section and the contractor's personnel.
RESPONSE 95.
Gnion schedule.
See response 71 concerning the Ft.
RESPONSE 96. The Draft EIS stated that it would
only address the regional implications of the Meridian
exchange as it was related to Alternative 3. An environ-
mental assessment of the exchange proposal has been
prepared by the Miles City BLM District Office. A separ-
ate section addressing impacts of the Meridian
exchange on Alternative 3 has been prepared for each
environmental component. These individual write-ups
can be found on pages 107, 121, 127, 130, 132, 134,
135, 142, and 151 of the Draft EIS.
RESPONSE 97.
impacts.
See response 63 concerning off-site
RESPONSE 98. Impacts of transmission lines, pipe-
lines, and railroad rights-of-way would have some effect
on ranches and other operations, but quantification of
these effects cannot be gauged in this document
because the actual location of the facilities is unknown.
The effect of utilities and transportation facilities on
ranch operations bears study at a more site-specific
level. It has also been recognized that land use would
change both qualitatively and quantitatively and the
number of unknowns is related to the scale of the study.
These and other gaps in the analysis of coal min-
ing must be studied when more specific proposals are
in hand. Some problems would yield to engineering
solutions but others would not. These options cannot
be explored until the proposals are known simply
because the problems are not limited and are too
3-13
numerous to be practically explored at this time. Tables
1-5 through 1-1 1 on pages 52 through 61 of the Draft
EIS indicate the amount of land used for each synfuel
plant would be 960 acres.
An exact assessment of the taxpayer burden from
a mix of tracts and facilities cannot be made at this time
because of a number of unknown factors. These
include, but are not limited to: (a) company mining
plan, (b) infrastructure system capacity at the time of
construction, and (c) conversion tax rate for liquefac-
tion facilities. All of the above items will be further
examined and solutions to problems pursued in separ-
ate EIS documents at the Mine Plan stage and through
the plant siting process of the applicable State.
See also response 19 concerning air pollution,
responses 29 and 64 on reclamation; response 96 on
the Meridian exchange; and response 140 on water
quality.
RESPONSE 99. The Air Quality Supplement points
out the nature of possible impacts from acid precipita-
tion, along with several indications that such impacts
may not be serious in the Ft. Union Region. There are
still many unanswered questions about acid precipita-
tion, making it impossible to currently evaluate impacts
more fully at this time. Much research on this subject is
currently under way and in time will enable a better
understanding.
RESPONSE 100. It is not known what wastes,
hazardous and non-hazardous, would be produced by
synthetic fuel facilities. It is difficult to identify wastes
even when a specific process is proposed. For example,
the gasification project underway north of Beulah,
North Dakota, has yet to identify wastes to the state of
North Dakota. The Nokota Company has stated its
coal-to-methanol process will produce no waste mate-
rials classified as hazardous by EPA.
Since synthetic fuel facilites have the potential to
produce hazardous wastes, it was assumed hazardous
waste would result when considering the generic facili-
ties in the Draft EIS. The EPA has research underway to
evaluate the effects of toxic pollutants from synfuel
plants (see page S-37 of the Air Quality Supplement).
Also see response 92 concerning air pollution and
response 99 concerning acid rain.
RESPONSE 101. See response 100 concerning
wastes.
RESPONSE 102. See response 100 concerning
wastes.
RESPONSE 103. See response number 84 con-
cerning air quality and response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 104. See response 140 concerning
changes in water quality as a result of mining.
RESPONSE 1 05. See response 54 concerning trace
element emissions.
RESPONSE 106. County budget items were not
covered in the analysis of community-specific fiscal
impacts. The fiscal impact numbers shown in Appen-
dix H of the Draft EIS portray only the expenditures
which could be directly attributable to communities as
a result of population growth.
RESPONSE 1 07. A one percent disruption of agri-
cultural production within the affected counties of the
Ft. Onion region would not, in the short term, signifi-
cantly affect the survival of the agricultural industry in
the region. Also see response 62 concerning fluctua-
tions in production.
RESPONSE 1 08. The Draft EIS has been prepared
in accordance with regulations implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act. These regulations
encourage agencies to tier their environmental state-
ments to eliminate repetitive discussion of issues.
Whenever a broad EIS has been prepared such as the
coal programmatic EIS, subsequent EISs incorporate
discussions from this statement by reference. This is
done to reduce the size of documents. "When an
agency is evaluating significant adverse effects on the
human environment in an environmental impact
statement, and there are gaps in relevant information or
scientific uncertainty, the agency shall always make
clear that such information is lacking or that uncertainty
exists." (40 CFR Part 1 502.22).The Ft. Union Draft EIS
has analyzed the best data available and has pointed
out where uncertainty exists and information is lacking.
If additional actions are taken, additional environmental
analyses would have to be prepared.
RESPONSE 1 09. The RCT ranked the tracts based
on three major categories as required by law: coal
economics, impacts to natural environment, and social
and economic considerations. Within each of these
major categories several subfactors were examined at
the RCT meeting on November 3 and 4, 1 982, see the
Modifications and Corrections section. Appendix K.
The concerns about ranking presented in this com-
ment were addressed in these subfactors. The Ft.
Gnion project staff provided a briefing for the RCT on
each of the subfactors as they related to the tracts. It was
on this basis that the RCT made its ranking decision.
RESPONSE 110. The correction has been made.
See the Modifications and Corrections Section, Intro-
duction.
RESPONSE 111. The correction has been made.
See the Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter
2, Wildlife.
RESPONSE 112. Corrections have been made. See
the Modifications and Corrections Section, Appendix B.
3-14
RESPONSE 1 1 3. The information in the Westech
report was used by the Miles City District Office for the
application of Gnsuitability Criteria during planning.
The document was not quoted in the Draft EIS so it was
not listed in the references.
RESPONSE 1 14. The Regional Coal Team consid-
ered the exchange proposal in the Draft EIS in order to
discuss the regional implications of the exchange in
relation to Alternative 3. The discussion of the
exchange was based upon information available aUhe
time. New information will not be covered in the Final
EIS since a separate, site-specific environmental analy-
sis for the exchange proposal has been prepared by the
Miles City District BLM Office. The preferred alternative
selected by the RCT for the Draft EIS states that if the
exchange takes place, then the coal acquired by the
federal government would replace the tonnage in the
Circle West III tract. A decision on the exchange is not
within the purview of this EIS.
RESPONSE 115. On October 19, 1982, the
Regional Coal Team stated the preferred alternative
would be the previously selected preferred alternative.
The team agreed that if the exchange proposal is
accepted, the preferred alternative would drop the Cir-
cle West III tract and add the federal tract resulting from
the exchange. This decision was made by the RCT after
the Draft EIS was published.
RESPONSE 1 1 6. Alluvial valley floor (AVF) unsuita-
bility criteria cover both surface irrigated and subsur-
face irrigated hay and crop land.
All references to AVFs throughout the Draft EIS
are preliminary determinations. These were identified
according to guidelines developed by the Office of
Surface Mining (August 1978). This procedure delin-
eates areas where AVF may occur (preliminary AVF)
and areas where AVF criteria does not apply (all other
areas). Within the area designated as a preliminary
AVF, no land is being withheld from leasing. However,
this identification does indicate the area may be
declared unsuitable at the mine plan stage. All prelimi-
nary alluvial valley floor determinations were made in
conjunction with the Office of Surface Mining. See also
response 1 09 on tract ranking and response 4 on water.
RESPONSE 117. See response 5 concerning lignite
and end-use facilities.
RESPONSE 1 1 8. The mix of alternatives in the Draft
EIS, especially Alternatives 5 and 6, do not allow a
comparison of the direct effects upon Circle, Montana
resulting from the development of the Redwater and
Circle West tracts/facilities.
RESPONSE 1 1 9. The Draft EIS does not state that
the Redwater tracts would be more difficult to reclaim
than Circle West. The site-specific tract analysis used
the National Soils Handbook standards and evaluated a
60-inch soil profile. This analysis found that mined land
could be respread with good to fair potential for plant
growth material. Information in the following tables
indicates the Redwater tracts may have better reclama-
tion potential than Circle West tracts.
SOILS AND RECLAMATION POTENTIAL, REDWATER
AND CIRCLE WEST TRACTS
Tract
Percentage Soil Reclamation Potential
Good Fair Poor Unsuitable
Redwater 1
15
3
38
14
Redwater II
14
37
35
14
Circle West 1
7
25
46
22
Circle West II
8
26
34
32
Circle West III
7
25
40
28
DEPTH OF GOOD TO FAIR PLANT GROWTH
/MATERIAL
Tract
Depth
Redwater I
Redwater II
Circle West I
Circle West II
Circle West 111
29 inches
31 inches
19 inches
20 inches
19 inches
RESPONSE 1 20. The affect of the proposed Meri-
dian exchange on consenting landowners has been
addressed in the Meridian Exchange Environmental
Assessment published by the Miles City District BLM
Office.
RESPONSE 121. All ownerships must be cleared
prior to the exchange being finalized. Also see response
1 20 concerning the proposed Meridian exchange.
RESPONSE 1 22. At the time the Draft EIS was pre-
pared BLM had not received information from Mobil Oil
on the Burns Creek tract nor did BLM have unsuitability
information related to the tract that would have
excluded it from consideration. The Burns Creek tract
was, therefore, left in as part of the preferred alternative.
Burns Creek has since been removed from the alterna-
tives. See response 1 09 regarding tract ranking.
RESPONSE 1 23. Although the RCT recommended
a preferred alternative for meeting the leasing target,
the Secretary of the Interior will make the final decision
on which tracts will be made available for leasing. It is
possible that all tracts could be made available since
some of the tracts may not be leased due to a lack of
surface owner consents.
RESPONSE 124.
lie input.
See response 59 concerning pub-
3-15
RESPONSE 125. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 1 26. See response 61 concerning coal
tonnages.
RESPONSE 1 27. See response 62 concerning crop
and livestock production.
RESPONSE 128. See response 63 concerning off-
site impacts.
RESPONSE 129. See responses 29 and 64 con-
cerning reclamation.
RESPONSE 1 30. See response 65 concerning dust
pollution.
RESPONSE 131. See response 66 concerning
springs and wells.
RESPONSE 1 32. See response 67 concerning sul-
fur dioxide emissions.
RESPONSE 1 33. See response 64 concerning rec-
lamation.
RESPONSE 134.
energy production.
See response 69 concerning
RESPONSE 135. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
caused the altered water chemistry in the spoils can
also change the water chemistry as it moves from the
spoils back into the undisturbed aquifer system. Undis-
turbed water in the surrounding aquifer will be mixing
with the altered water resulting in dilution. Because the
quantification of this geochemical process has still not
been defined and because of the typically complex
makeup of the overburden material, it is impossible to
say it would take 100 feet, a quarter mile, a mile, or
whatever, before the altered water returns to its approx-
imate pre-mined condition.
The limit placed on the movement of altered water
quality in this document was an attempt to find a gen-
eral maximum impact zone. The limits are the profes-
sional opinion of the Draft EIS hydrologist after discus-
sions with scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey and
the North Dakota Geological Survey. Some scientists
believe that this impact zone would be much smaller.
There is no experience to indicate that this impact
could not extend beyond the limits suggested, however,
it is the opinion of the scientific community that this
would be unlikely.
RESPONSE 141. See response 31 on the purpose
of the Draft EIS and need to lease federal coal.
RESPONSE 142. See response 82 concerning the
proposed Meridian exchange.
RESPONSE 143. See response 83 concerning the
preferred alternative.
RESPONSE 144. See response 84 concerning air
quality.
RESPONSE 136. See response 76 concerning air
quality.
RESPONSE 145. See response 71 concerning the
Ft. Union schedule.
RESPONSE 1 37. See response 77 concerning fiscal
projections.
RESPONSE 1 46. See response 86 concerning eco-
nomic impacts.
RESPONSE 138. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 139. See response 81 concerning ref-
erences.
RESPONSE 140. Researchers have identified
changes in water quality in the replaced spoils at a
number of sites in the Ft. Union region. The result of
what happens to this water as it moves through the
system has never been observed. This is primarily
because of the limited number of years of research, the
slow movement of groundwater, and the fact that pre-
vious mining has occurred on a small scale.
Once the changes in water chemistry were identi-
fied, the process of geochemical reactions that led to
the changes were identified. This same process that
RESPONSE 147. See responses 29 and 64 con-
cerning reclamation.
RESPONSE 148. See response 88 concerning
water.
RESPONSE 149. See response 71 concerning the
Ft. Union schedule.
RESPONSE 150. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 151. See response 122 concerning the
Burns Creek Tract.
RESPONSE 152. See response 92 concerning air
quality and acid rain.
3-16
RESPONSE 1 53. See response 63 concerning off-
site impacts.
RESPONSE 154. See response 94 concerning the
preparation of the Draft EIS.
RESPONSE 155. See response 71 concerning the
Ft. Union schedule.
RESPONSE 1 56. See response 96 concerning the
proposed Meridian exchange.
RESPONSE 157. See response 63 concerning the
off-site impacts.
RESPONSE 1 58. See response 98 concerning the
impacts of transmissions lines and rights-of-way.
RESPONSE 1 59. See response 99 concerning acid
rain.
RESPONSE 1 73. See response 1 1 3 concerning the
Westech report.
RESPONSE 1 74. See response 1 1 4 concerning the
proposed Meridian exchange.
RESPONSE 1 75. See response 1 1 5 concerning the
preferred alternative.
RESPONSE 176. See response 116 concerning
alluvial valley floors.
RESPONSE 1 77. See response 5 concerning lignite
and end-use facilities.
RESPONSE 1 78. See response 1 1 8 concerning the
Redwater and Circle West tracts.
RESPONSE 1 79. See response 1 1 9 concerning the
Redwater and Circle West tracts.
RESPONSE 160. See response 100 concerning
wastes.
RESPONSE 161. See response 100 concerning
wastes.
RESPONSE 162. See response 100 concerning
wastes.
RESPONSE 1 80. See response 1 20 concerning the
proposed Meridian exchange.
RESPONSE 181. See response 1 2 1 concerning the
proposed Meridian exchange.
RESPONSE 1 82. See response 1 22 concerning the
Burns Creek tract.
RESPONSE 163. See response 84 concerning air
quality.
RESPONSE 164. See response 140 concerning
water quality.
RESPONSE 1 65. See response 54 concerning trace
element emissions.
RESPONSE 1 66. See response 1 06 concerning fis-
cal impacts.
RESPONSE 167. See response 107 concerning
agricultural production.
RESPONSE 168. See response 108 concerning
NEPA regulations.
RESPONSE 169. See response 109 concerning
tract ranking.
RESPONSE 170. See response 110 concerning
corrections and modifications.
RESPONSE 171. See response 111 concerning
corrections and modifications.
RESPONSE 183. See response 123 concerning
leasing.
RESPONSE 184. See response 31 on the purpose
of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal coal.
RESPONSE 185. Significant agricultural and com-
munity impacts were addressed in the Draft EIS. See
responses 19, 63, 64 and 67 regarding agricultural
impacts.
The social impacts were prepared using the Guide
to Social Impact Assessment developed by Mountain
West Research, Inc., under contract with BLM. This
methodology was specifically designed to assess the
impacts of energy development on rural western
communities. It focuses on the impacts of the project,
inputs on social well-being, and social organization
given the community's resources. Ten rural western
communities that experienced energy-related growth
during the 1970s were examined during the develop-
ment of the Guide. The Guide reflects the types of
impacts that have actually occurred in areas under-
going energy-related change. The changes in com-
munity social organization and social well-being are
predicted to be significant under some alternatives in
this Draft EIS.
RESPONSE 1 72. See response 1 1 2 concerning
corrections and modifications.
RESPONSE 186. See response 98 concerning the
impacts of transmission lines, pipelines, and rights-of-
way.
317
RESPONSE 187. See response 18 concerning well
systems.
RESPONSE 1 88. The route studies in the Draft EIS
indicate the potential impact to the highway systems of
the area. Once plant and mine sites are established,
other routes might be more desireable. The average
annual daily traffic volumes used here could be used for
those other roads to provide an indication of any poten-
tial problem areas, however, more specific projects or
mining plans have to be developed.
RESPONSE 189. Population projections showed
that Wolf Point would be marginally impacted by devel-
opment. Subsequent discussions with the Wolf Point
city planner indicated that the community infrastruc-
ture could easily handle the forecasted population
influx. Impacts from crime are discussed in the Draft
EIS on pages 143-152 under Social Well Being, and
poaching and possible mitigating measures are dis-
cussed on page 125. See response 188 regarding traf-
fic routes.
RESPONSE 190. See response 63 on off site
impacts and response 86 for economic impacts to
agriculture.
RESPONSE 191. See reponse 62 for off-site agricul-
tural impacts, and response 86 for economic impacts
to agriculture.
RESPONSE 192. See response 18 for disrupted
water sources and response 66 for replacing water
wells.
RESPONSE 1 93. See response 59 on public involve-
ment.
assumptions were based on results from ongoing rec-
lamation studies in the region, also see response 64.
"Long term" with regard to agricultural production
would be 10 years after initial reclamation efforts in
North Dakota and 15 years in Montana. "Long term"
with regard to the entire tract would be about 50 years in
order to consider the life of the mine and the total
reclamation effort.
RESPONSE 200. The economic impact analysis
allows for an assessment of what would happen to the
community's population if abandonment occurred.
This is reflected in the baseline population forecast
included in each graphic. If abandonment occurred
during the construction or operation phase, the impact
values shown would revert to the baseline values and
the construction or operation work force would leave
the area.
Communities could be faced with public service
funding problems if service capacity expanded to
accommodate the large, development-related work-
force. This is part of the uncertainty a community faces
when confronted with local energy development. It is
extremely difficult to quantify the extent to which any
given community would be impacted if abandonment
were to occur since a tremendous number of variables
come into consideration in an analysis of that sort.
Because of this, it is not possible to predict, on a
community-by-community basis, the impacts asso-
ciated with abandonment of a major energy project.
RESPONSE 201.
tract ranking.
See response 109 concerning
RESPONSE 202. The change has been made. See
in the Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter 3,
Water.
RESPONSE 194. See response 31 on the purpose
of the Draft EIS and the need to develop coal.
RESPONSE 1 95. See response 88 on the amount of
water needed to develop coal.
RESPONSE 196. See response 31 on the purpose
of the Draft EIS and the need to lease coal.
RESPONSE 197. See response 1 14 and response
1 20 on the proposed Meridian exchange.
RESPONSE 198. Any water sources that are dis-
rupted in quantity or quality as a result of mining would
have to be replaced by the mining company. Also see
response 18.
RESPONSE 199. For analysis purposes, a 10-year
period for reclamation to federal and state standards
was assumed in North Dakota. Since the Montana cli-
mate is drier, a 15-year period was assumed. These
RESPONSE 203. These changes have been made.
See in the Modifications and Corrections section, Chap-
ter 3, Water.
RESPONSE 204. The difference in the number of
sections of the Dunn Center tract eligible for National
Register of Historic Places has been changed in the
Modification and Corrections sections, Introduction.
The Draft EIS contains several statements about
the significance of the Knife River Flint Quarries. Specif-
ically, on page 93, the quarries are described as being
"of national significance in understanding prehistory."
Additionally, page 128 of the Draft EIS describes the
conflicts in the Dunn Center tract.
The specific impacts of mining on the cultural sites
of the Dunn Center tract would have to be dealt with
prior to mining. As the commenter has pointed out, this
could not be done through an "all or none program-
matic approach." Measures designed on a site-specific
basis would be needed to prevent adverse impacts to
cultural resources. This kind of assessment would be
3-18
done at mine plan stage and coordinated through a
review process that would include the developer, the
Office of Surface Mining, and the State Historic Preser-
vation Officer.
The final comment by the Bureau of Reclamation
noted the national significance of the Knife River Flint
Quarries located on the Dunn Center tract. It expressed
the hope that this issue would be resolved in the Draft
EIS so that the Bureau of Reclamation Environmental
Impact Statement on the siting of the coal-to-methanol
plant would not have to supplement the cultural
resource coverage.
It is impossible to provide the details in a regional
document which would avoid the need for more
detailed coverage on a site specific action. The Draft
EIS stated that impacts on sites outside the eligible
National Register District could be mitigated by data
recovery or other means (see especially the Modifica-
tions and Corrections section). Because the plant site is
located outside the National Register District boundary,
presumably impacts on cultural sites could be mit-
igated. However, the proposed utilities corridor for the
plant site would pass through a portion of the eligible
National Register District. Within that corridor, loca-
tions of roads, pipelines, railroads, etc., are not yet
specified. Without that information, the impact of facili-
ties in the corridor on the National Register District sites
cannot be assessed. Similarly, the efficacy of mitigation
measures would not be addressable until the proposed
action is more precisely defined.
RESPONSE 205. Unsuitability determination is a
part of the land use planning process and is not a part of
activity planning which is what the Draft EIS addresses.
The application of the unsuitability criteria has been
completed for the Redwater, West-Central, and Golden
Valley Management Framework Plans. The results of
these applications were published and received a pub-
lic review and comment period. The final determina-
tions of the application of the unsuitability criteria are
available from the Miles City and Dickinson District
Offices.
RESPONSE 206. The statement quoted is an
assumption made for analytical purposes. How land
would be used after mining would be determined in
consultation with the surface landowner at the mine
plan stage in accordance with the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act and applicable state regulations. The
probability of achieving the required levels of post-
mining agricultural productivity and woodlands recla-
mation is discussed in response 64. Wetlands reclama-
tion is discussed in response 29. See also page 1 24 of
the Draft EIS.
RESPONSE 207. See responses 29, 64, 87, and 206
concerning reclamation. Also, seethe wildlife section of
Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS, especially Alternatives 1, 2,
and 5, for discussions of possible mitigating measures.
See pages 1 23 and 1 24 of the Draft EIS for discussions
of post mining land use.
RESPONSE 208. Key species and valuable wildlife
habitats are discussed in the site-specific analyses and
are incorporated in this document by reference and
tiering in accordance with regulations implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts
1500-1508).
RESPONSE 209. The North Dakota Game and Fish
Department was contacted with regard to adverse
impacts to fisheries. The impacts that were identified
were incorporated in the Draft EIS. The information
referred to in the comment was not included in the
Draft EIS because no significant impacts to those
resources were identified.
An interagency team consisting of biologists from
the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, G.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) — Bismarck Area
Office and the Bureau of Land Management, Dickinson
District Office provided the best habitat information
available. Also, FWS and the North Dakota Game and
Fish Department were represented in the wildlife work
group and did not identify any significant impacts to
these fisheries.
RESPONSE 210. See response 67 concerning air
pollution effects on plant and animal life.
RESPONSE 211. The impact analysis for Alternative
1 must be read within the context of this alternative as
described on pages 49 and 50 of the Draft EIS. Briefly,
the existing and permitted mines and facilities are part
of the baseline. It was assumed that employment would
not change since it was addressed in the approval and
permitting process for the mines and facilities.
RESPONSE 212. The reason much of the area
would be destroyed should federal coal not be leased is
because approximately 76% of these vegetative types
for the three tracts listed is on private surface-private
mineral. This information is supported by the habitat
maps provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service and
on-the-ground observations.
RESPONSE 213. We agree that these problems
exist, however, "With proper planning ..." as stated on
page 1 24 of the Draft EIS, the management problems
could be overcome.
RESPONSE 214. It is our opinion that reclamation
related to native prairie would be adequate for wildlife as
stated on page 124 of the Draft EIS.
RESPONSE 2 1 5. See responses 1 9, 63, 67, 92, and
140 concerning off-site impacts.
319
RESPONSE 2 1 6. See responses 1 9, 62, 63, 67, and
92 concerning off-site impacts to agriculture.
RESPONSE 217. See response 185 concerning
social impacts.
RESPONSE 218. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 219. Cultural resources on or eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places must be
considered under federal coal leasing regulations. BLM
operates under those regulations. In the course of
compliance work for the Ft. Union Draft EIS, one area
was determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, but no area has been proposed for
formal addition to the National Register by this agency.
The word "proposed" has been deleted. See the Modi-
fications and Corrections section, Introduction.
RESPONSE 220. The Dickinson BLM District con-
cluded that more archaeological information and a
mitigation plan would be necessary before a decision
about mining two sections of federal coal in the Dunn
Center logical mining units could be made. The Keeper
of the National Register of Historic Places determined
that a district including these sections is eligible for the
National Register. That determination made the sites,
and an appropriate buffer around them, potentially
unsuitable for mining; however, such unsuitability
could be excepted if it could be demonstrated that
adverse impacts to cultural resources could be mit-
igated. The possibility of that mitigation has not been
demonstrated, so a final decision about mining cannot
be made.
The Dickinson District decision does not prevent
the leasing of the two sections. Mitigation, if possible, is
designed by a potential developer after the federal coal
has been leased. If leasing does not take place then the
developer is denied the option of possible mitigation,
thereby losing the possibility to fully recover the coal.
Therefore, a decision to lease while holding the deci-
sion about mitigation for future review allows for the
development of mine plans and the protection of
archaeological resources.
The two sections (Sections 32 and 34, T145N,
R93 W) where unsuitability criteria application is a prob-
lem have been taken under review by the Director,
Bureau of Land Management. That review must be
completed prior to any leasing decision for the Dunn
Center tract.
Plans for cultural resources must be approved
while the lessee is planning for the development of the
Dunn Center LMU. This includes approval by the State
Historic Preservation Officer and the Office of Surface
Mining. To insure that the cultural resource work is
acceptable, early and continuous contact with respon-
sible agencies is advised.
RESPONSE 221. North Dakota no longer permits
disposal of waste materials in open mine pits. The
correction has been made. See the Modifications and
Corrections section, Introduction and Chapter 3, Water.
RESPONSE 222. The correction has been made.
See in the Modifications and Corrections Section,
Introduction.
RESPONSE 223. See response 116 concerning
alluvial valley floors.
RESPONSE 224. A Memorandum of Understand-
ing to outline procedures to be used in the future of the
Knife River Flint Quarries would serve a number of
interests. It would provide the ground work for the
development of information from the sites, and it would
provide the developer with a plan to follow during plan-
ning and mining.
RESPONSE 225. On pages 85, 1 05, and 1 06 of the
Draff EIS the reference to irrigated land is to land along
Spring Creek and does not refer to any area within the
tract. The reference to 31 1 irrigated acres on page 89
includes four individual water permits. One is for an
area along Spring Creek. This conditional permit was
perfected in January, 1 982. This area, however, has
been deleted from the tract. Another permit in T144N,
R94W, Sec.2 has been forfeited since the record was
last checked. A third permit in T145N, R93W, Sec. 32 is
a conditional water permit with no usage reported as
yet. The fourth permit in T144N, R93W, Sec. 7 is a
perfected permit and has reportedly been used for the
last ten years. For the purposes of this Draft EIS, condi-
tional and perfected permits are lumped together
because they both mean that the individual has the
legal right to divert water. The Modifications and Cor-
rections section, Chapter 2, Agriculture changes the
31 1 acres to 200 acres of irrigated land in the Dunn
Center tract. All water permit data was received from
the North Dakota State Water Commission.
RESPONSE 226. The information that Nokota's
coal-to-methanol project would produce no wastes
classified as hazardous by EPA has been made. See the
Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter 3,
Water.
RESPONSE 227. The elimination of high walls in
accordance with applicable laws has been made. See
the Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter 3,
Wildlife.
RESPONSE 228. The statement in the summary on
page 127 of the Draft EIS refers only to short-term
habitat destruction which assumes that reclamation of
woody draws would be successful. See the Modifica-
tions and Corrections section, Chapter 3, Wildlife.
3-20
RESPONSE 229. The PSD Class II particulate
increments shown in Table 2-3 are correct as listed
according to the North Dakota State Department of
Health (M. Schock, telephone, Nov. 16, 1982).
RESPONSE 230. It is true that the air quality impact
analysis was based on worst-case scenarios, as pointed
out in the Air Quality Supplement (pages S-l 1, ST 2,
S-14, S-l 5, S-l 6, S-22, and others). Worst-case scena-
rios were employed to evaluate the worst impacts which
could occur.
RESPONSE 231.
unsuitability.
See response 205 concerning
RESPONSE 232. The purpose of the Draft EIS is to
look at the consequences of leasing and development
of federal reserves in compliance with the federal coal
management regulations and NEPA. The RCT decided
that an evaluation of the impacts of a typical conversion
facility near the mine was necessary. Although these
facilities were included, it was recognized that approval
of these facilities was not a part of the action required to
be covered and that the facilities would be subject to
separate analyses and approval by the permitting
agencies. The selection of the type of facility for each
tract was based on expressions of interest from indus-
try. Using the expressions and other information, it was
assumed specific types of facilities would be associated
with each tract. Although industry has indicated its
interest in Ft. Union coal, many companies have not
developed plans for facilities.
RESPONSE 233. The Redwater alternative of the
Meridian Exchange was developed as a result of public
meetings. This alternative was not available for analysis
in the Draft EIS and has been analyzed in the Meridian
Environmental Assessment available from the Miles
City BLM District Office.
RESPONSE 234. The "usable storage" in Fort Peck
Reservoir is the total amount in the reservoir that could
be usable for all sources. Pages 104-105 of the Draft
EIS addresses the specifics of what is available for other
uses, including those of the State of Montana and the
Fort Peck Indian tribe.
RESPONSE 235. See response 200 concerning
abandonment. As mentioned in the Draft EIS on page
136, Montana communities show deficits because
there is no way to predict how much state coal sever-
ance tax revenues would be apportioned to the com-
munities since this process is based solely on applica-
tions for grants. Consequently, the net fiscal balances
do not reflect severance tax flows to communities.
Further analysis of the GSGS engineering reports
prepared for each of the Montana tracts shows that
$160,400,000 would be generated annually from sev-
erance taxes (as shown below) if all Montana tracts were
leased as assumed. Applying the 8.75 percent rate to
determine the amount available for local impact assist-
ance through Coal Board grants, it is estimated that
approximately $12,000,000 would be available annu-
ally from these Montana tracts for that purpose.
Total Montana Severance Tax
Bloomfield — $16.8 million/yr.
Circle I — $9.7 million/yr.
Circle II — $1 1.0 million/yr.
Circle III — $23.4 million/yr.
North Wibaux-Beach — $16.6 million/yr.
Redwater I — $16.8 million/yr.
Redwater II — $8.6 million/yr.
South Wibaux-Beach — $16.8 million/yr.
Glendive — $16.8 million/yr.
NOTE: Circle tracts taxed at 30 percent severance rate;
all others at 20 percent.
RESPONSE 236.
systems.
See response 18 concerning well
RESPONSE 237. See response 62 concerning agri-
cultural impacts.
RESPONSE 238. The correction for the referencing
of the Montana Major Facility Act has been made. See
the Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter 3,
Other Land Uses and Values.
RESPONSE 239. A discussion of the Montana Major
Facility Siting Act was inadvertantly left out. The correc-
tion has been made. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Appendix I.
RESPONSE 240. The changes have been made.
See the Modifications and Correction Section, Appen-
dix I, Page A-31 , column 2, after the last paragraph.
RESPONSE 241. The Ft. Union Draft EIS could
have included an expanded list of laws, however, the
intent was to include those that are central to this pro-
ject. If a specific law or regulation was not listed, that
does not mean it is was not consulted. See response
108 concerning EIS preparation.
The level of detail in the Regional Draft EIS is not
sufficient for coal development on any specific site. It is
not the intent of this document to supply that level of
detail. The BLM analysis, done in consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer, primarily identified
the level of impacts and made preliminary recommen-
dations on whether the impacts to known cultural
resources could be mitigated. As mine plans are devel-
oped for specific areas, more information would be
required. Questions about the importance of specific
sites, details of mitigation, and overall planning for the
protection of cultural resources would be addressed in
the mine plans.
3-21
RESPONSE 242. The Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks and the North Dakota Game and
Fish Department were contacted in preparation of the
Draft EIS. The agencies concluded, as discussed on
pages 125 and 126 of the Draft EIS and in the site-
specific analyses, there could be significant impacts to
fisheries by taking water from the shallow bays of Fort
Peck Reservoir and Lake Sakakawea. Measures to mit-
igate these impacts are also discussed. Other impacts
were identified but were not considered to be signifi-
cant. This included in-stream flow reductions.
RESPONSE 243. The correction has been made.
See the Modifications and Corrections Section, Intro-
duction.
the Powder River region. Generally, the overburden of
the Ft. Union region is of finer texture and more com-
plexly interbedded than in the Powder River region. This
would make AVF restoration plans and operations
more complicated in the Ft. Gnion region. Also Ft.
Gnion coal is lignite five to twenty feet thick compared
to Powder River subbituminous coal which is eighty feet
thick (at the South Fork of Spring Creek). These factors
create an unfavorable economic outlook for trying to
recover lignite beneath alluvial valley floors in the Ft.
Gnion region. Industry operating in the Ft. Gnion region
generally considers AVFs as avoidance areas which are
not feasible to mine. No companies in the region have
indicated an interest in mining in AVFs under current
law.
RESPONSE 244. The corrections have been made.
See the Modifications and Corrections section, Appen-
dix B.
RESPONSE 245. It is understood that a commit-
ment to a joint state-federal lease sale in June 1983 has
not been made. However, in the early stages of the Ft.
Gnion Project there were discussions that it would be
desirable to hold joint lease sales if the mechanics of
the two leasing processes could mesh. It was decided
that, prior to the sale, a final determination would be
made by the states regarding the feasibility of a joint
sale.
RESPONSE 246. It could be possible that draw-
downs could extend beyond "about a mile." This
impact would be variable because it would depend
upon the local aguifer's porosity, permeability, and
thickness. In his investigations at three mine sites in the
Ft. Gnion region, Groenewold ( 1 979) reached the con-
clusion that this impact would extend a mile or a mile-
and-a-half from an open pit. The terminology "about a
mile" should be interpreted as an approximation of the
distance of the impact.
Geologic and hydrologic data has been collected
in the area of four North Dakota tracts and for most of
the production maintenance tracts. This data shows
there are numerous thick beds of fine-grained materials
underlying the shallow mineable lignites. These geo-
logic units do not prevent leakage but limit it to such a
small amount that it would be insignificant. These gen-
eral conclusions were applied to the other tracts that are
in the same geologic setting but have no site-specific
data.
RESPONSE 247. See response 100 concerning
hazardous wastes.
RESPONSE 248. When considering the practicality
of restoring alluvial valley floors (AVF) one must con-
sider both technical feasibility and economic feasibility.
The hydrogeology and mining economic conditions in
the Ft. Gnion region are considerably different than in
RESPONSE 249. All direct impacts of mining and
coal conversion facilities on the guality and guantity of
the hydrologic system are addressed in the water sec-
tion of Chapters 2 and 3. Water resources also play a
vital role in the discussions of most of the other issues in
this statement. There are a number of ways to format a
document such as the Ft. Gnion Draft EIS. Each
method has advantages and disadvantages for the
reader. Numerous discussions occurred within the
agency about this guestion prior to writing the docu-
ment. Regulations implementing the National Envi-
ronment Policy Act recommend a standard format for
environmental impact statements unless the agency
determines there is a compelling reason to do other-
wise. Since the project manager and the authors could
not develop a format that was clearly better for the
reader, the recommended format was used.
RESPONSE 250. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 25 1 . The following graphics show fore-
casted population and fiscal impacts for McCone
County through the year 2000 for Alternatives 3, 5, and
6. These 3 alternatives contain the projects which
would most significantly affect McCone County.
Response 235 shows the annual amount of severance
tax monies that would be available for local impact
mitigation.
RESPONSE 252. The comment raises a valid con-
cern of the Fort Berthold Reservation Tribes. One of the
purposes of the Draft EIS was to bring out potential
impacts of the project so that such concerns could be
identified.
RESPONSE 253. The Ft. Gnion EIS is a regional
document and does not analyze site specific projects.
The information provided in the document for mines
and facilities is generic and based upon typical facilities.
The information presented in this analysis therefore
cannot provide the specific information suggested by
3-22
GRAPHICS FOR RESPONSE 251
POPULATION FORECASTS FOR
MCCONE COCINTY
FISCAL BALANCE FOR
MCCONE COCJNTY
3342
POPULATION FORECASTS FOR MCCONE
ALTERNATIVE 3
p
3242
.
i"ox different io] *
0
p
3142
u
L
A
1
3042
294 2
X±±Tl.\ [ 1 ]
0
N
2642
2742
2S42
2542
2442
2342
IS
32
1990 2022
Yeoi >
Bosel me POPULAT ION
POPULATION Projeciion for MCCONE
1
FISCAL BALANCE(«000>
ALTERNATIVE « 3
4122 v
4222
POPULATION FORECASTS FOR HCCONE
3922
ALTERNATIVE 5
P
3820
mox di f f eren i . ol *
0
3722
p
3622
^
3520
'-
3422
T
3320
3222
0
N
3122
3222
2922
j'xA.A i...
2822
2722
2622
2500
2420
2320
2220
2120
19
30
1992
2222
Yeoi >
Bosel me POPULATION
POPULATION Projeciion
for MCCONE
FISCAL BALANCE l«O0Ol
ALTERNATIVE ■ 5
POPULATION FORECASTS FOR MCCONE
p
0
14222
1 3222
ALTERNATIVE 6
p
12222
mo* different iol *
1 1220
A
10020
T
9020 '
C
8000
N
7222 |
6202 j
/
5200 !
/
4222
J
3202
2200
___^a.-
1222
0
19
30
1992 2200
Yeoi >
Bosel me POPULATION
POPULATION Projeciion for MCCONE
FISCAL BALANCEltOOOl
ALTERNATIVE » 6
3-23
the comment. Site-specific information can only be
developed when definite information on projects is pro-
vided at permitting stages as was the case with the
Antelope Valley and Coal Creek stations.
RESPONSE 254. The corrections have been made.
See the Modifications and Corrections Section, Chap-
ter 1.
RESPONSE 255. The corrections have been made.
See the Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter
1.
RESPONSE 256. The corrections have been made.
See the Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter
1.
RESPONSE 257. The corrections have been made.
See the Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter
1.
RESPONSE 258. The cultural resource in question
is a stone circle (tipi ring). The change has been made.
See the Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter
2, Cultural Features.
RESPONSE 259. See response 29 concerning
wetland reclamation.
RESPONSE 260. The comment, referring to Table
2-2 of the Air Quality Supplement, is correct and the
change has been made. See the Modifications and
Corrections section. Air Quality, Chapter 2.
RESPONSE 26 1 . Estimates of potential Indian water
usage have been made by the State of Montana and
Bureau of Reclamation investigations and are used in
this Draft EIS. Tribes from the Fort Peck and Fort
Berthold reservations have received copies of the Draft
EIS and have commented on the document (see
comments 252 and 253). The concerns expressed in
these comments were directed toward air quality with
no specific concerns related to water.
RESPONSE 262. The comment is correct. Fort
Peck has been considered as a class I PSD area as
indicated on page S-23, Table S-5, and page S-27,
column one, paragraph five of the Air Quality Supple-
ment.
RESPONSE 263. Analysis of population forecasts
indicate only a marginal impact to the community of
Wolf Point and insignificant impacts to all other com-
munities north of the Missouri River and Fort Peck
Reservoir.
RESPONSE 264.
Meridian facilities.
See response 82 concerning the
RESPONSE 265. See response 83 concerning the
leasing target and the preferred alternative.
RESPONSE 266. The regulations implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act state that an envi-
ronmental statement should discuss adverse environ-
mental impacts, and the relationship between short-
term uses of the human environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term produc-
tivity.
In the Draft EIS, reclamation-related agricultural
impacts are considered short term. Agricultural eco-
nomic impacts were discussed from the short-term and
long-term aspects, especially regarding how individual
farm and ranch operations and the operator and his or
her family would be affected. Operators who lease land
within the coal tracts would be impacted in the long
term, as discussed in the Draft EIS and the site-specific
agricultural economic tract reports. Some operations
could be forced out of business.
The statement in the summary has been changed.
See the Modifications and Corrections Section, sum-
mary. Short and long term impacts have been added.
See the Modifications and Corrections section, Chapter
3.
The wildlife section of the Draft EIS identifies the
impacts that would occur during mining and discusses
possible mitigating measures. Please refer to page 1 23,
second column, last three paragraphs; page 1 24, para-
graphs two, three, four and six; and page 1 25, para-
graphs three, six, seven and eight.
RESPONSE 267. As discussed in the Draft EIS,
there are many variables that influence net impacts.
Pages 123, 124, and 125 provide discussions of the
magnitude of impacts and items that would affect the
severity of these impacts. Mining plans and detailed
plans for facility development are not available so it is
not known whether mitigating measures can be devel-
oped for a particular situation. However, these ques-
tions would be answered prior to issuance of mining,
construction, and operating permits.
RESPONSE 268. The Comparison of Alternatives
could have been located at the end of Chapter 3 as
suggested. Regulations call for presenting the envi-
ronmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives
in comparative form to provide a clear definition of the
issues and provide the basis for choice among options.
The Comparison of Alternatives section provides this
information and thus is required to be included in the
alternatives portion of the document.
RESPONSE 269. The additional, detailed informa-
tion pertaining to air quality impacts of the preferred
Alternative 3 are given in a separate, more detailed Air
Quality Technical Report, copies of which have been
provided to the commentor.
3-24
RESPONSE 270. In order to comply with regula-
tions concerning "worst-case" analyses, compensation
values were used for analysis purposes because defini-
tive data was not available. Compensations were not
factored into the budget models for typical farm and
ranch operations since compensation is provided only
for landowners and not for operators who lease land
within the coal tracts. Since net gains could not be
analyzed for all farm and ranch operations, the issue
was not addressed in the Draft EIS.
RESPONSE 271. Thank you. The mitigation des-
cribed in the EIS was limited to that which is legally
enforceable under existing laws/ regulations.
The concept of company towns is certainly a viable
means of accommodating a large population increase
in an area which could otherwise experience problems.
It is clear that a company town designed to accommo-
date the entire construction/operations workforce for a
project would minimize, if not eliminate, the adverse
economic/social impacts to other local, established
communities, however, it would be inappropriate in a
federal EIS to consider this as a viable, predictable, or
enforceable means of impact mitigation.
The amount of Montana coal severance tax
revenues available annually from each of the Montana
tracts is discussed in response 235.
RESPONSE 272. The draft document is complex
and the figures, tables, and maps were developed to
present this information in graphic form where possi-
ble. These graphics do not tell the story in and of
themselves. It is true that this information does not
show the Meridian exchange by itself nor does it show
what part of Alternative 3 is composed of the Meridian
exchange, however, neither were the discussions of
each alternative designed to show what part of the
alternative is composed by each tract. This information
shows one full-sized synfuel plant or two full-sized power
plants. The graphics do not show the information just
for the initial plant as provided by Meridian which is
discussed in the text. The impact statement was not
designed to address the impacts of the Meridian
exchange. A site-specific environmental analysis for the
exchange has been published by the Miles City BLM
District Office. The Ft. Union EIS addresses only the
regional implication of the exchange as related to
Alternative 3. The information contained in the draft
does not reflect the most recent information provided
by Meridian which is covered in the site-specific envi-
ronmental assessment.
RESPONSE 273. The Draft EIS identifies on a
regional level the impacts to groundwater that are likely
to occur as a result of development. A site-specific
analysis is also available for each tract. The Draft EIS
does not state you may never be assured of the original
quality or quantity of water that you had before devel-
opment. State and federal law requires that water sour-
ces that are degraded in quality or quantity as a result of
mining must be replaced with a source of equal or
better quality and quantity. The Draft EIS finds such
replacement water supplies are available.
RESPONSE 274. See responses 19 and 67 con-
cerning sulfur dioxide pollution.
RESPONSE 275. Probable changes in community
social organization and social well being are discussed
in the impact section for each alternative. These
changes are predicted to be quite significant under
some alternatives.
RESPONSE 276. The fiscal balance figures shown
in the Draft EIS are calculated by comparing forecasted
revenues with forecasted costs to arrive at a net esti-
mate. Revenue items at the local level include property
taxes, education transfers, excise tax transfers, federal
revenue sharing transfers, and user fees. Costs include
capital investments on streets, maintenance on streets,
water distribution and treatment, waste water systems
and treatment, solid waste disposal, operational and
capital expenditures for law enforcement, fire protec-
tion, and other local government functions. See also
response 251 concerning county budgets and popula-
tion increases.
RESPONSE 277. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 278. See response 22 concerning the
development of the air quality study.
RESPONSE 279. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 2.
RESPONSE 280. Compositing of STAR data is an
approximation commonly used in modeling and is
considered valid for points within a single air basin.
The CDMQC model is the best available model for
regional modeling of annual average pollutant concen-
trations. It will generally yield conservative results.
RESPONSE 28 1 . See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Appendix F.
The comment regarding Colstrip Units 3 and 4 is
correct; the information was erroneously and uninten-
tionally omitted from the 1997 emissions inventory.
Although it should have been included, it is believed
that the omission did not result in significantly errone-
ous results or conclusions. This is due to the fact that
the modeling results indicated no significant cumula-
tive interaction of emissions from Colstrip Units 1 and 2
with emissions from project sources under the meteo-
rological scenarios modeled. See Figure 3-8, page S-
26, of the Air Quality Supplement which shows a small,
localized sulfur dioxide contour in the Colstrip area
widely separated from project source concentrations.
3-25
RESPONSE 282. See response 27 concerning
background pollution concentrations.
RESPONSE 283. Assumptions and methodology
employed in estimating project emissions are des-
cribed briefly in the Draft EIS on page 41 and in more
detail in the Site Specific Analyses and associated Air
Quality Technical Report (BLM, 1981).
RESPONSE 284. The Draft EIS discusses the
increase in visitor use at Fort Peck Reservoir as a result
of Alternatives 2 through 6. Many individuals, including
members oftheAssiniboine and Sioux Tribes, may find
their overall recreational experience diminished by
more people, campers and boats. This problem could
be mitigated by building one or more new recreational
facilities to provide alternative areas.
The comment regarding air quality is in agree-
ment with the Air Quality Supplement, pages S-23 and
S-27.
Please refer to the discussion of wetlands and
wildlife habitat on page 1 23 of the Draft EIS.
See response 263 regarding population forecasts
for Wolf Point.
beyond the scope and capability of the Air Quality
Supplement. Research on the effects of organic com-
pound emissions is being conducted by EPA, and
results are not yet available. See also Response 1 08.
RESPONSE 290. The statement in the Air Quality
Supplement about the possibility of acid rain eventually
consuming the buffering capacity of local soil is pre-
ceded by the phrase "if the mean pH values as mea-
sured by the Department of Health are indicative of a
trend toward increasing acidity". Such a trend is not
established at this time. See comments by the North
Dakota State Department of Health pages 2-6 through
2-9 and response 28. Response 289 also applies to this
subject.
RESPONSE 291.
cerning air quality.
See responses 84 and 289 con-
RESPONSE 292. See responses 269 and 289 con-
cerning air quality. In addition, a copy of the detailed Air
Quality Technical Report showing modeled isopleth
maps for all alternatives and all major pollutants was
furnished to the Fort Peck Tribes.
RESPONSE 285. The comment is generally correct
and in agreement with the limitations of the air quality
study ( BLM, 1 982 b) described on pages S- 1 5 and S- 1 6
of the Air Quality Supplement. The reasons for focus-
ing on the Theodore Roosevelt National Park for worst-
case air quality impact analysis are valid and provide a
reasonable scenario for the analysis. This also brought
out impacts throughout the Ft. Union Region. Meteoro-
logical data for the year 1964 are considered to be
typical and are widely used in air quality analyses by
many organizations.
RESPONSE 286. The document does not state that
the air quality modeling results contain an error of a
factor of two, but the results are considered accurate
within a factor of two. To attempt to show the margins
of error on the isopleth maps would provide some
additional information at the expense of clarity and
understandability of the already complex plots. See also
the Modifications and Corrections section, Air Quality,
Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 287. See response 286 concerning air
quality modeling results.
RESPONSE 288. See response 285 concerning air
quality.
RESPONSE 289. The air quality analysis focused on
evaluation of alternatives relative to established air qual-
ity standards because the standards have been estab-
lished to set limits within which effects have been found
to be insignificant. An exhaustive analysis of all poten-
tial effects of the predicted levels of air pollution was
RESPONSE 293. The rationale and constraints for
focusing the air quality analysis on worst-case impacts
are acknowledged and discussed in the Air Quality
Supplement on pages S-l 1, S-15, and ST 6. The aver-
age or "normal" pollution levels which would result
from the project alternatives are substantially below the
worst-case levels and are best represented by the
annual average pollutant concentrations described on
page S-22. See also responses 67 and 289 concerning
air quality.
RESPONSE 294. The only significant air pollutants
which would be emitted during the peak construction
period would be vehicle-related exhaust emissions and
dust from unpaved roads. While these emissions would
be somewhat greater during peak construction than
during later operation, the level of pollution will be small
relative to the total level during operation.
RESPONSE 295. The Air Quality Supplement
shows the type and extent of violations of air quality
standards which could occur if the coal leasing project
were to be implemented. The results give the region a
basis for planning implementation and mitigation
measures to meet regulatory requirements. Minimal
leasing is one way to minimize air pollution, but other
means are also possible and can be evaluated in detail
in connection with each specific project and site which
may be proposed. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 296. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 3.
3-26
RESPONSE 297. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 3.
RESPONSE 298. The visibility modeling study, like
the pollutant dispersion modeling study, was per-
formed with the objective of investigating only worst-
case impacts. This was mainly because neither time
nor funding was available to do more detailed studies
and also because worst-case impacts are the critical
parameters which determine legal or practical limita-
tions of a project. For the latter reason, worst-case
impacts are the most important to bring out in an EIS.
Detailed impact evaluation is done at a later stage of
project evaluation such as a PSD new source review.
The terms "adverse" and "baseline" in the study
were used with the meanings customary in EIS anal-
yses. Because of their more closely defined meanings
in the current Clean Air Act, and to avoid possible
misunderstanding, the term "adverse" is hereby
deleted wherever used in Chapter 3 of the document;
the term "baseline" is retained wherever it is used in
connection with 1 975 baseline emissions; but wherever
it is used in connection with projected future emissions
in 1997 (e.g., "1997 baseline emissions"), it is hereby
replaced with the term "inventory" (e.g., "1997 emis-
sions inventory").
RESPONSE 299. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 3 and responses 28
and 48 concerning pH and the MESOPUFF model,
respectively.
RESPONSE 300. The definition of the term "integral
vista" and explanatory statements given in the com-
ment are correct. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Glossary.
RESPONSE 30 1 . See pages 89-92 of the Draft EIS.
Also see the Modifications and Corrections section, Air
Quality, Chapter 3, and response 358 concerning a
species list.
RESPONSE 302. No development proposed in this
Draft EIS would cause any change to the free-flowing,
undeveloped, natural, or cultural characteristics of
either river segment with the possible exception of air
quality impacts.
RESPONSE 303. Mitigation for the projected
demand illustrated by Appendix J is tied to the eco-
nomic section of the Draft EIS. In North Dakota, a
certain percentage of the coal severance tax flows
directly to the impacted cities and counties to use to
construct or enlarge those facilities which are
impacted. Although recreational facilities may not be
considered an essential service such as water and sew-
age disposal, it is feasible to assume that when the
essential services are updated, monies would be
assigned to upgrade the community recreational facili-
ties.
In Montana, the state delivers the money on an
application and grant basis and it is impossible to pre-
dict when and if the community recreational facilities
would be expanded. If, as an example, one community
applied for money to enlarge its sewage disposal sys-
tem and another community applied to upgrade its
community recreational services, it is assumed, all
things being equal, that the sewage disposal applica-
tion would receive the grant. It may be that individual
community recreational facilities in Montana may have
to wait until all communities and counties affected have
upgraded their essential services. Again, this is impos-
sible to predict because of Montana's application and
grant system.
While it is true there may be ample precedent for
the project sponsors to provide recreational facilities as
a mitigating measure, they have no legal responsibility
to do so. Since different companies have varying poli-
cies on this type of expenditure, it was impossible to
predict how much money, if any, would be available for
expanding recreational facilities.
RESPONSE 304. The Draft EIS recognizes the
importance of the Knife River Flint Quarries on p. 63,
paragraph one, column two. The quarries offer a
number of important research topics, including the
relationship between the major sites now part of the
Knife River Indian Village National Historic Site and the
quarries.
A major portion of the Knife River Flint Quarry area
has been found eligible as a National Register of His-
toric Places district through consultation with the North
Dakota State Historic Preservation Office. This eligibility
status insures that the quarries must be considered in
future mining and development decisions. BLM has
proposed that a Memorandum of Agreement be devel-
oped (which would include the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and any other parties whose
actions would affect the quarries) to assure considera-
tion of the overall interrelationships of the quarries with
other archaeological problems in determining proper
treatment of these sites.
RESPONSE 305. See response 87 concerning
summer fallowed land.
RESPONSE 306. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 2.
RESPONSE 307. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Air Quality, Chapter 2.
RESPONSE 308. The meaning of the schematic
diagram would be clearer (although not changed) by
reversing the arrows. The expression "sufficiently
major" refers to whether the types and quantities of
pollutants which would be emitted by a new source fall
within the specified requirements of the state or the
federal Clean Air Act requiring a PSD permit.
3-27
RESPONSE 309. See response 283 concerning
emissions.
RESPONSE 310. Emissions of permitted and pend-
ing facilities were obtained from the state air quality
regulatory agencies. This information was employed in
all modeling exercises. Emissions from hypothetical
project facilities were obtained as described in
response 283 and were employed in the same form
(assumed to be typical design rates) in all modeling
exercises.
RESPONSE 311. The sentence and paragraph
referred to are not necessarily inconsistent. Any appar-
ent inconsistency is a reflection of the lack of present
understanding of acid rain.
RESPONSE 312. Emissions and air quality impacts
from secondary stationary sources are mainly
accounted for in the electric power and synfuel plants of
the project. Any other secondary stationary source
emissions would be insignificant. Dust emissions from
increased traffic on unpaved roads may be significant
and aggravate TSP pollution in some localities.
RESPONSE 313. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft E1S and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 314.
quality standards.
See response 295 concerning air
RESPONSE 315. See response 100 concerning
hazardous wastes, response 99 concerning acid rain,
response 92 concerning toxic wastes, and response 84
concerning trace elements.
RESPONSE 316. Impact assessments were made
on the information that was available as explained in
responses 64 and 67.
RESPONSE 317. See response 140 concerning
water quality.
RESPONSE 318. See response 63 on off-site
impacts, response 64 on reclamation, and response 67
on air quality. For disturbance to roads, railroads, pipe-
lines, and transmission lines, see page 130 of the Draft
EIS and response 98.
RESPONSE 3 1 9. Page A- 1 8 in the Draft EIS shows
that Beach, North Dakota would not show a surplus
until 1992, or approximately six years after the start of
construction. See also response 77 concerning fiscal
projections.
RESPONSE 320. See responses 29, 33, 63, 64, and
67 concerning off-site impacts.
RESPONSE 32 1 . See response 1 08 concerning the
IES Regulations.
RESPONSE 322. Refer to responses 63, 67, 108
and see the Modifications and Corrections section,
Chapter 3, Air Quality. The draft document has pro-
vided a "worst case" situation in terms of the analysis of
the development of the tracts. As a part of the total
program, special studies were made for social and
economic conditions for both site-specific and regional
assessments. Also, a special study was made on
impacts on various sizes of farm/ ranch operations. All
studies were completed within time and budgetary
constraints.
RESPONSE 323. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 324. See response 31 concerning the
purpose of the Draft EIS and the need to lease federal
coal.
RESPONSE 325. Consultation and cooperation
with state governments is an important part of the coal
leasing program. The RCT established closer consulta-
tion and cooperation efforts; however, the decisions by
the Secretary of the Interior are based upon more than
just consultation with state governments. The decisions
are based upon the potential economic, social, and
environmental effects of coal leasing; expressions of
interest by industry for development and demand for
coal reserves; expected production from existing fed-
eral coal leases and non-federal coal holdings; the level
of competition within the region; the U.S. coal produc-
tion goals; projections of future demand for federal
coal; consideration of national energy needs; and any
other pertinent factors.
RESPONSE 326. See response 205 concerning
unsuitability.
RESPONSE 327. See responses 92 and 289 con-
cerning toxic wastes and air pollution, respectively.
RESPONSE 328. See response 98 on transmission
lines and rights-of-way, response 92 on toxic wastes and
acid rain and response 67 on metabolic selenium defi-
ciency.
The air quality modeling study was extensive but
was limited by various constraints referred to on pages
ST 5 and ST 6 of the Air Quality Supplement. These
constraints limited the modeling scenarios to 48 hours.
While it is possible that pollutant concentrations could
reach slightly higher levels during a longer episode, it is
not expected that such higher concentrations would be
markedly higher, and such episodes would be infre-
quent.
3-28
It is extremely unlikely that concentrations of sul-
furic and nitric acid aerosols would ever reach such a
high level as to directly affect human health. See com-
ment and response 54 regarding additional recent
research by the North Dakota State Department of
Health on the long-term effects of trace elements on soil
and water quality. The modeling study, as stated on
page S-36, does not point to significant production of
acidic rain in the Ft. Union coal region. Significant
refers to a degree which would result in harmful effects.
RESPONSE 329. It is not known when the EPA
research on organic emissions of synfuel plants will be
completed. No further EIS studies are planned before
coal is leased, but each proposed conversion facility
utilizing leased coal will require complete environmen-
tal impact analysis and mitigation. See also response
1 00 concerning wastes.
RESPONSE 330. See response 54 concerning toxic
emissions.
RESPONSE 331. The analysis of impacts of
radioactive elements in the West Central North Dakota
Regional study cited in the Ft. Union Draft EIS was not
limited to a one-year period. That limitation (subse-
quently extended) applied to effects of other trace ele-
ments.
RESPONSE 332. The quotation cited in the com-
ment implying that the North Dakota State Department
of Health found "the buffering capacity [of water] will
eventually be consumed ..." was quoted out of context,
and no such finding has been reported by the NDSDH.
See also response 28 concerning pH values.
RESPONSE 333. Future industries would be con-
strained, case by case, to limit emissions to levels that
won't violate air quality standards. See also response
294. The limitations of the modeling studies described
on pages S-l 5 and S-16 of the Air Quality Supplement
were identified in order to define clearly the scope of the
studies. However, it should not be so interpreted that
substantive or justifiable conclusions were precluded.
Some of the limitations were related to unavoidable
limitations of data, some were related to limitations of
modeling science, some were related to appropriate-
ness for purposes of the Draft EIS, and some were
related to time and cost constraints.
RESPONSE 334. Groenewold (1980) has moni-
tored post-mining spoils at three sites in North Dakota
and has observed the water levels returning to pre-
mining condition. See also responses 18, 92, 140 and
246 concerning water quality.
RESPONSE 335. See response 64 concerning rec-
lamation, response 87 regarding provisions of the Sur-
face Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and
response 206 concerning post-mining land use.
RESPONSE 336. See response 29 on wetlands and
response 64 on reclamation.
RESPONSE 337. See response 29 on wetlands and
response 64 on reclamation.
RESPONSE 338. See responses 62, 86, 9 1 , and 322
with respect to regional and individual operator agricul-
tural economic impacts, and responses 67 and 63 for
off-site impacts.
RESPONSE 339. See responses 1 1 , 1 88, and 253.
The utility of the tables was accurately portrayed in the
document, but traffic flows were intentionally over-
estimated and only peak hours were considered. The
questions concerning tax increases, raising tax monies,
and accident rates cannot be projected specifically in a
regional EIS. Given the generic nature and the assump-
tions made for the EIS, these specific questions cannot
be accurately analyzed. Many options to address these
concerns are open to planners and politicians at the
state and local level.
RESPONSE 340. The phased-development assump-
tion was based on information supplied to us by indus-
try. The gravity model sub-module used in the popula-
tion forecasts uses a "community attractiveness index"
which reflects exactly the items mentioned in the
comment.
Expenditures (e.g., county schools and roads) and
revenues which are county- related were not shown in
the community fiscal impact graphics. The table in
response 235 shows the total amount of severance tax
monies available annually (8.75%) for local impact mit-
igation purposes from each tract in Montana during full
production.
RESPONSE 341. The incidence of crime would
increase with a population influx. However, it is not clear
that the rate of crime invariably increases. In cases
where rapid growth has occurred, a change may take
place in crime reporting. Problems that were previously
treated informally may now come to the attention of law
enforcement officials. This makes "before and after"
statistical comparisons unreliable. A report from the
Montana Department of Justice to be published in early
1 983 will address the issue of crime increases in rapidly
growing communities.
RESPONSE 342. See response 200 concerning
economic impacts of abandonment.
RESPONSE 343. Correction has been made in the
Modifications and Corrections Section, Introduction.
3-29
RESPONSE 344. The amount of federal coal in
Alternative 3 is covered in Table 1-6 as 827.2 million
tons.
On page 72 of the Draft E1S is a modification of
Alternative 3 which became the Regional Coal Team
preferred alternative. This modification resulted in
832.8 million tons proposed for leasing. See the Modi-
fications and Corrections section, Chapter 1 for correc-
tions to tonnages of all alternatives.
RESPONSE 345. The total area to be disturbed for
Alternative 3 is 204,813 acres as shown in Table T6.
The figure of 238,225 acres shown on page 1 13 of the
Draft EIS shows the total acreage of the tracts within the
alternative and Tables 3-9 and 3-10 break this total
acreage down into classifications of suitable plant
growth material and the types of vegetation found
within the tracts. Figure 1-12 on page 67 shows the
acreage of different vegetation types within the tracts
that could likely be impacted. The title of Figure 1-12
should be "Vegetation Types (Acres)." This change has
been made. See the Modifications and Corrections sec-
tion, Chapter 1 . This section also changes the acreage
figures for the alternatives.
RESPONSE 346. The employment figures dis-
cussed in the narrative of the Draft EIS are for primary
employment only. The effects of secondary employ-
ment are reflected in the population graphics shown in
Appendix G.
RESPONSE 347. The air quality analysis evaluated
impacts in terms of both Class I and Class II PSD
standards, and included consideration of the Fort Peck
Reservation's application for Class I status. See pages
S-23 and S-27 of the Air Quality Supplement.
The comment is correct. Adequate measures to
meet Class I air quality standards would have to be
incorporated into the design of the plant.
RESPONSE 348. Meteorological data from Glas-
gow, Montana, near the Fort Peck Reservation were
also utilized in the modeling studies. This was weighted
most heavily in evaluating dispersion in the Fort Peck
Reservation area.
RESPONSE 349. The Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 was discussed on page 4 of
the introduction of the Draft EIS as one of the major
authorities for the leasing of federal coal. Appendix A is
a list of all the acts and laws which may have a bearing
on the leasing, development and reclamation of coal
but, were not specifically discussed in the text.
RESPONSE 350. There are four aquifer zones in the
Ft. Union region that would yield fresh water to wells.
The lower two are regionally extensive. The upper of
these two as shown on page 88 of the Draft EIS are in
the Ft. Gnion formation. They consist of silt and clay
interbedded with sandstone and lignite. The sand and
lignite beds would yield small quantities of water to
wells. These aquifers are locally extensive but there are
usually several levels of occurance throughout the
depth of these aquifer zones. More details are available
in references listed in the reference section of the Draft
EIS.
RESPONSE 351. These shallow aquifer systems
(see response 350) are sometimes confined and some-
times unconfined. Both of these conditions may exist
within the same tract.
RESPONSE 352. See the Modifications and Correc-
tions section, Chapter 2, Water.
RESPONSE 353. See responses 350 and 351 con-
cerning shallow aquifers.
RESPONSE 354. See response 246 concerning
drawdowns. See also page R-2 of the Draft EIS for
references by Groenewold.
RESPONSE 355. See response 248 concerning
alluvial valley floors.
RESPONSE 356. Efforts are under way with the
State of Montana to prepare the required stipulations
for the lease sale.
RESPONSE 357. A number of these items were
discussed in the Draft EIS as mitigating measures. All
of the items listed would be considered at either lease or
mine-plan stage.
RESPONSE 358. A complete species list would
have limited value in a regional EIS, however, species
expected to be significantly impacted were discussed in
the draft EIS.
RESPONSE 359. Land form and vegetative diversity
were the most important factors considered in the
impact analysis of habitat. Permanent losses to wildlife
habitat in relationship to reclamation and mitigation
potentials and probabilities are discussed in numerous
paragraphs on pages 1 23, 1 24, and 1 26 of the Draft
EIS.
RESPONSE 360. Impacts to antelope were dis-
cussed in the Site Specific Analyses and were incorpo-
rated into the Draft EIS on pages 1 26 and 1 27.
RESPONSE 361. No significant impacts to raptors
from the large transmissions lines were identified.
RESPONSE 362. See pages 124 and 125 of the
Draft EIS. Although not specifically mentioned, disturb-
ance from snowmobiling and four-wheel drive vehicles
were included in these discussions.
3-30
RESPONSE 363. It is true that where soil lifts are
removed and stored separately, in accordance with
federal and state requirements, no impacts related to
mixing of materials would be anticipated. The concern
is raised, however, as a cautionary statement regarding
those soils with thin topsoil which are more difficult to
reclaim.
The discussion is in the Affected Environment
chapter because ongoing mining operations are a part
of the existing situation.
RESPONSE 364. The following summarizes cultu-
ral resource inventory and evaluation efforts by tracts in
the Ft. Union coal region. They are listed in the Referen-
ces section of the Draft EIS.
Montana
Tract
Report of Archaeological W
Bloomfield
Deaver, Sherry, N.d.
Circle West 1
Deaver, Sherry, N.d.
Circle West II
Same
Circle West III
Same
Redwater 1
Munday, Frederick C. N.d.
Redwater II
Munday. Frederick C.
North Dakota
North Wibaux-Beach
Fox, Steven, 1982
South Wibaux-Beach
Same
Zenith
Same
Schoolhouse
Fox R. et al., 1976
Roberson, W., 1980
Underwood
Good, Kent, et al., 1978
Good, Kent, 1981
Dill, C.L 1975
North Beulah
Dill, 1978
Renner
Dill, 1978
Antelope
Dill, 1978
Werner
Greiser, T.W., 1981
Dunn Center
Greiser, T.W., 1981
Loendorf, L.L. et al., 1976
Truax
Dill, 1978
Sakakawea
Freese, Robin et al., 1981
Glenharold
Ahler, S.A. et al., 1979
Farmer, T.R. et al., 1979
Dill, C.L, 1976
Garrison
Freese, Robin et al., 1981
Center
Dill, C.L. 1976
RESPONSE 365. See response 1 1 on potential
problem areas, response 1 88 on highways and 253 on
generic mines and facilities.
RESPONSE 366. The statement on page 8 regard-
ing front end financing should have stated that this
source "could solve some of the lag problem . . ." It is
true this does not necessarily result in the solution of all
of the problems nor does it always result in geographi-
cally correct impact mitigation disbursements.
RESPONSE 367. The net fiscal forecasts shown for
Alternative 3 in Appendix H reflect a fundamental dif-
ference between the Montana and North Dakota sever-
ance and conversion tax disbursements to impacted
communities. The situation in Montana is on an appli-
cation/grant basis solely, while that for North Dakota is
predictable, based on a number of factors regarding
population growth. Because of the relative unpredicta-
bility of Montana severance and conversion tax
disbursements, this revenue source could not be fore-
casted as part of the net fiscal balance for Montana
communities.
Also see response 235 for the total annual amount
of severance tax which would be available from Ft.
Union tracts in Montana.
RESPONSE 368. Mr. Moore has been contacted
and BLM is currently working with the U.S. Air Force to
resolve their concerns.
3-31
Bureau of Land Management
So, Denver ^era, Center
Denver, CO 80225
>
C
00
O
1
a
r
s
r
o o
> >
Z H
W PI
D
DO
O
•x
o
s=
PI
X
00 ^
5?
CD
o
XI
o
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11